Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Today’s armed forces are highly dependent on software. Software products are built by complex networks of software components, software vendors, service providers, and other companies that, together, form the software supply chain. In “conventional” cybersecurity incidents, threat actors usually gain direct access to their target. But in the case of the software supply chain, the risks originate upstream in the supply chain itself and have an impact on entities downstream – often the end users. The armed forces are particularly vulnerable to these risks. Software supply chain incidents in the military sector have caused disruption and allowed malicious actors to engage in industrial espionage, political espionage, and sabotage. Policymakers and the Bundeswehr can manage software supply chain risk in the military sector through a set of measures. First, decision-makers should determine the requisite level of protection for the various areas of software use to strike a balance between risk management, on the one hand, and the functionality, cost, and speed of deployment, on the other. Thereafter, the Bundeswehr should establish effective risk management. Further, the federal government and the Bundeswehr should ensure that software suppliers reduce the software supply chain risk posed by their products. By doing so, the armed forces can be given adequate protection.

This research explores how epistemological dissonance shapes agrarian sustainabilities in Mbeya, Tanzania. Through a case study of smallholder farmers navigating both market-driven and eco-cultural paradigms of sustainability, the research explores how plural epistemologies shape local sensemaking and agricultural decision-making. It demonstrates how farmers reconcile divergent sustainability logics, those rooted in market interpretations of sustainability with those rooted in relational ethics, ecological stewardship, and cultural continuity within agrarian landscapes. Employing hybrid strategies, farmers compartmentalize production, input intensive, market-targeting monocultures co-exist alongside primarily subsistence agroecological systems. These spatial divisions mirror deeper ontological tensions, as farmers articulate pride in market breakthroughs while expressing anxiety about environmental degradation, cultural erosion, and the loss of intergenerational practices. Building on plural sustainabilities literature and epistemologies of the South theories, the paper adds to scholarship reinterpreting sustainability not as a universal, singular paradigm, but a contested, contextually negotiated process. The case of Mbeya illustrates how epistemological dissonance becomes embodied through emotional and cognitive labor, and how hybrid sensemaking enables farmers to navigate conflicting knowledge systems. Rather than viewing hybridity as incoherence, the paper interprets these strategies as acts of situated resilience, adaptation, and resistance. The analysis contributes to political ecology and sustainability studies by foregrounding the ontological multiplicity at play in agrarian transitions and calls for institutional recognition of knowledge pluralism. Ultimately, the paper proposes a shift toward pluriversal sustainability frameworks that integrate both empirical and relational epistemologies, acknowledging that sustainable futures are as much about values and worldviews as they are about technologies and yields.

This research explores how epistemological dissonance shapes agrarian sustainabilities in Mbeya, Tanzania. Through a case study of smallholder farmers navigating both market-driven and eco-cultural paradigms of sustainability, the research explores how plural epistemologies shape local sensemaking and agricultural decision-making. It demonstrates how farmers reconcile divergent sustainability logics, those rooted in market interpretations of sustainability with those rooted in relational ethics, ecological stewardship, and cultural continuity within agrarian landscapes. Employing hybrid strategies, farmers compartmentalize production, input intensive, market-targeting monocultures co-exist alongside primarily subsistence agroecological systems. These spatial divisions mirror deeper ontological tensions, as farmers articulate pride in market breakthroughs while expressing anxiety about environmental degradation, cultural erosion, and the loss of intergenerational practices. Building on plural sustainabilities literature and epistemologies of the South theories, the paper adds to scholarship reinterpreting sustainability not as a universal, singular paradigm, but a contested, contextually negotiated process. The case of Mbeya illustrates how epistemological dissonance becomes embodied through emotional and cognitive labor, and how hybrid sensemaking enables farmers to navigate conflicting knowledge systems. Rather than viewing hybridity as incoherence, the paper interprets these strategies as acts of situated resilience, adaptation, and resistance. The analysis contributes to political ecology and sustainability studies by foregrounding the ontological multiplicity at play in agrarian transitions and calls for institutional recognition of knowledge pluralism. Ultimately, the paper proposes a shift toward pluriversal sustainability frameworks that integrate both empirical and relational epistemologies, acknowledging that sustainable futures are as much about values and worldviews as they are about technologies and yields.

This research explores how epistemological dissonance shapes agrarian sustainabilities in Mbeya, Tanzania. Through a case study of smallholder farmers navigating both market-driven and eco-cultural paradigms of sustainability, the research explores how plural epistemologies shape local sensemaking and agricultural decision-making. It demonstrates how farmers reconcile divergent sustainability logics, those rooted in market interpretations of sustainability with those rooted in relational ethics, ecological stewardship, and cultural continuity within agrarian landscapes. Employing hybrid strategies, farmers compartmentalize production, input intensive, market-targeting monocultures co-exist alongside primarily subsistence agroecological systems. These spatial divisions mirror deeper ontological tensions, as farmers articulate pride in market breakthroughs while expressing anxiety about environmental degradation, cultural erosion, and the loss of intergenerational practices. Building on plural sustainabilities literature and epistemologies of the South theories, the paper adds to scholarship reinterpreting sustainability not as a universal, singular paradigm, but a contested, contextually negotiated process. The case of Mbeya illustrates how epistemological dissonance becomes embodied through emotional and cognitive labor, and how hybrid sensemaking enables farmers to navigate conflicting knowledge systems. Rather than viewing hybridity as incoherence, the paper interprets these strategies as acts of situated resilience, adaptation, and resistance. The analysis contributes to political ecology and sustainability studies by foregrounding the ontological multiplicity at play in agrarian transitions and calls for institutional recognition of knowledge pluralism. Ultimately, the paper proposes a shift toward pluriversal sustainability frameworks that integrate both empirical and relational epistemologies, acknowledging that sustainable futures are as much about values and worldviews as they are about technologies and yields.

The European Think Tanks Group and the German Institute for Development and Sustainability (IDOS) teamed up with the Istanbul Policy Center to organise a public seminar and a closed-door workshop to explore how three key actors – Turkey, the European Union and China – are responding to the above trends and changes. Comparing their current policies, agendas, and past practices provided a means to explore whether their approaches to international cooperation, particularly in the context of their engagements with the Global South, are converging (or diverging) during today’s turbulent times, and to determine the scope and relevance of further comparative research. This blog post highlights some key points of what was discussed and links them to current academic and policy debates.

The European Think Tanks Group and the German Institute for Development and Sustainability (IDOS) teamed up with the Istanbul Policy Center to organise a public seminar and a closed-door workshop to explore how three key actors – Turkey, the European Union and China – are responding to the above trends and changes. Comparing their current policies, agendas, and past practices provided a means to explore whether their approaches to international cooperation, particularly in the context of their engagements with the Global South, are converging (or diverging) during today’s turbulent times, and to determine the scope and relevance of further comparative research. This blog post highlights some key points of what was discussed and links them to current academic and policy debates.

The European Think Tanks Group and the German Institute for Development and Sustainability (IDOS) teamed up with the Istanbul Policy Center to organise a public seminar and a closed-door workshop to explore how three key actors – Turkey, the European Union and China – are responding to the above trends and changes. Comparing their current policies, agendas, and past practices provided a means to explore whether their approaches to international cooperation, particularly in the context of their engagements with the Global South, are converging (or diverging) during today’s turbulent times, and to determine the scope and relevance of further comparative research. This blog post highlights some key points of what was discussed and links them to current academic and policy debates.

Milliardenerbschaften bleiben oft steuerfrei. Eine Reform der Erbschaftsteuer erfordert keine Revolution, aber gezielte Veränderungen für mehr Fairness und Effizienz. , Die Debatte über die Erbschaftsteuer flammt alle paar Jahre wieder auf – meist wenn das Bundesverfassungsgericht droht, das nächste Loch in das ohnehin löchrige Regelwerk zu reißen. Schnell fordern manche eine grundlegende Reform, andere eine Abschaffung der Steuer und wieder andere eine Erhöhung ...

Despite the potential of renewable hydrogen to galvanize economies and climate action, governments and development banks often lack a coherent framework to assess and approve hydrogen projects on sustainability grounds. Decision-making processes regarding land allocation, permitting and infrastructure access remain fragmented, increasing the risof extractive investment models that provide limited local benefits while causing environmental harm. Transparent, universally accepted sustainability guidelines can help decision makers select project partners that align with their respective priorities and objectives, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, such a framework can enhance investor confidence and public trust by ensuring that hydrogen projects deliver tangible socioeconomic benefits to host communities. Recognizing this need, a broad coalition of stakeholders has collaborate to develop the Guidelines for Sustainable Hydrogen Projects, integrating expertise from multiple disciplines to create a flexible yet comprehensive decision-making tool. The Guidelines serve as a reference for governments, development banks and other stakeholders in evaluating hydrogen project proposals. Rather than prescribing rigid requirements, they provide a non-exhaustive set of criteria that can be adapted to local contexts. The Guidelines emphasize maximizing domestic value creation while safeguarding environmental and social standards. Applicable to large-scale projects with a minimum capacity of 200 megawatts (MW) - including renewable electricity generation, water desalination, electrolysis, and related infrastructure - they help ensure that hydrogen investments contribute to long-term sustainable development. By aligning with the SDGs, they promote inclusive economic growth, responsible resource management and climate action.

Despite the potential of renewable hydrogen to galvanize economies and climate action, governments and development banks often lack a coherent framework to assess and approve hydrogen projects on sustainability grounds. Decision-making processes regarding land allocation, permitting and infrastructure access remain fragmented, increasing the risof extractive investment models that provide limited local benefits while causing environmental harm. Transparent, universally accepted sustainability guidelines can help decision makers select project partners that align with their respective priorities and objectives, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, such a framework can enhance investor confidence and public trust by ensuring that hydrogen projects deliver tangible socioeconomic benefits to host communities. Recognizing this need, a broad coalition of stakeholders has collaborate to develop the Guidelines for Sustainable Hydrogen Projects, integrating expertise from multiple disciplines to create a flexible yet comprehensive decision-making tool. The Guidelines serve as a reference for governments, development banks and other stakeholders in evaluating hydrogen project proposals. Rather than prescribing rigid requirements, they provide a non-exhaustive set of criteria that can be adapted to local contexts. The Guidelines emphasize maximizing domestic value creation while safeguarding environmental and social standards. Applicable to large-scale projects with a minimum capacity of 200 megawatts (MW) - including renewable electricity generation, water desalination, electrolysis, and related infrastructure - they help ensure that hydrogen investments contribute to long-term sustainable development. By aligning with the SDGs, they promote inclusive economic growth, responsible resource management and climate action.

Despite the potential of renewable hydrogen to galvanize economies and climate action, governments and development banks often lack a coherent framework to assess and approve hydrogen projects on sustainability grounds. Decision-making processes regarding land allocation, permitting and infrastructure access remain fragmented, increasing the risof extractive investment models that provide limited local benefits while causing environmental harm. Transparent, universally accepted sustainability guidelines can help decision makers select project partners that align with their respective priorities and objectives, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, such a framework can enhance investor confidence and public trust by ensuring that hydrogen projects deliver tangible socioeconomic benefits to host communities. Recognizing this need, a broad coalition of stakeholders has collaborate to develop the Guidelines for Sustainable Hydrogen Projects, integrating expertise from multiple disciplines to create a flexible yet comprehensive decision-making tool. The Guidelines serve as a reference for governments, development banks and other stakeholders in evaluating hydrogen project proposals. Rather than prescribing rigid requirements, they provide a non-exhaustive set of criteria that can be adapted to local contexts. The Guidelines emphasize maximizing domestic value creation while safeguarding environmental and social standards. Applicable to large-scale projects with a minimum capacity of 200 megawatts (MW) - including renewable electricity generation, water desalination, electrolysis, and related infrastructure - they help ensure that hydrogen investments contribute to long-term sustainable development. By aligning with the SDGs, they promote inclusive economic growth, responsible resource management and climate action.

Technological change, an overwhelming fact in recent socioeconomic history, involves, as Joseph A. Schumpeter famously put it, “creative destruction” on a large scale: it gives rise to new goods, production methods, firms, organisations, and jobs, while rendering some received ones obsolete. Its impact extends beyond the economy and affects society, culture, politics, and the mind-set of people. While it allows solving certain problems, it causes new ones, inducing further technological change. Against this background, the paper attempts to provide a detailed, yet concise exploration of the historical evolution and measurement of technological change in economics. It touches upon various questions that have been raised since Adam Smith and by economic and social theorists after him until today living through several waves of new technologies. These questions include: (1) Which concepts and theories did the leading authors elaborate to describe and analyse the various forms of technological progress they observed? (2) Did they think that different forms of technological progress requested the elaboration of different concepts and theories – horses for courses, so to speak? (3) How do different forms of technological progress affect and are shaped by various strata and classes of society? Issues such as these have become particularly crucial in the context of the digitisation of the economy and the widespread use of AI. Finally, the paper explores the impact of emerging technologies on the established theoretical frameworks and empirical measurements of technological change, points to new measurements linked to the rise of these technologies, and evaluates their pros and cons vis-à-vis traditional approaches.

Technological change, an overwhelming fact in recent socioeconomic history, involves, as Joseph A. Schumpeter famously put it, “creative destruction” on a large scale: it gives rise to new goods, production methods, firms, organisations, and jobs, while rendering some received ones obsolete. Its impact extends beyond the economy and affects society, culture, politics, and the mind-set of people. While it allows solving certain problems, it causes new ones, inducing further technological change. Against this background, the paper attempts to provide a detailed, yet concise exploration of the historical evolution and measurement of technological change in economics. It touches upon various questions that have been raised since Adam Smith and by economic and social theorists after him until today living through several waves of new technologies. These questions include: (1) Which concepts and theories did the leading authors elaborate to describe and analyse the various forms of technological progress they observed? (2) Did they think that different forms of technological progress requested the elaboration of different concepts and theories – horses for courses, so to speak? (3) How do different forms of technological progress affect and are shaped by various strata and classes of society? Issues such as these have become particularly crucial in the context of the digitisation of the economy and the widespread use of AI. Finally, the paper explores the impact of emerging technologies on the established theoretical frameworks and empirical measurements of technological change, points to new measurements linked to the rise of these technologies, and evaluates their pros and cons vis-à-vis traditional approaches.

Technological change, an overwhelming fact in recent socioeconomic history, involves, as Joseph A. Schumpeter famously put it, “creative destruction” on a large scale: it gives rise to new goods, production methods, firms, organisations, and jobs, while rendering some received ones obsolete. Its impact extends beyond the economy and affects society, culture, politics, and the mind-set of people. While it allows solving certain problems, it causes new ones, inducing further technological change. Against this background, the paper attempts to provide a detailed, yet concise exploration of the historical evolution and measurement of technological change in economics. It touches upon various questions that have been raised since Adam Smith and by economic and social theorists after him until today living through several waves of new technologies. These questions include: (1) Which concepts and theories did the leading authors elaborate to describe and analyse the various forms of technological progress they observed? (2) Did they think that different forms of technological progress requested the elaboration of different concepts and theories – horses for courses, so to speak? (3) How do different forms of technological progress affect and are shaped by various strata and classes of society? Issues such as these have become particularly crucial in the context of the digitisation of the economy and the widespread use of AI. Finally, the paper explores the impact of emerging technologies on the established theoretical frameworks and empirical measurements of technological change, points to new measurements linked to the rise of these technologies, and evaluates their pros and cons vis-à-vis traditional approaches.

Der

Der

Die SOEP Innovations-Stichprobe (SOEP-IS) verfolgt das Ziel, innovative Datenerhebung für die Wissenschafts-Community zu ermöglichen und eignet sich daher in besonderem Maße für die Etablierung neuer und zielgruppenspezifischer Messinstrumente in Langzeiterhebungen, für Kurz- und Langzeitexperimente ...

Die SOEP Innovations-Stichprobe (SOEP-IS) verfolgt das Ziel, innovative Datenerhebung für die Wissenschafts-Community zu ermöglichen und eignet sich daher in besonderem Maße für die Etablierung neuer und zielgruppenspezifischer Messinstrumente in Langzeiterhebungen, für Kurz- und Langzeitexperimente ...

Lorsqu’on souscrit un crédit immobilier, il est impératif de bien connaître les enjeux, car il s’agit d’un engagement financier important qui s’étale la plupart du temps sur plusieurs décennies. Malgré cela, nombreux sont les profils à se soucier uniquement du taux d’intérêt de leurs prêts en négligeant un élément pourtant très important : l’assurance emprunteur. ...

Lire la suite

Source