Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Die von der zweiten Administration unter US-Präsident Donald Trump getroffenen Entscheidungen zur weitgehenden Auflösung der US-amerikanischen Entwicklungspolitik sind tiefgreifend. Die Tragweite der Kursänderung lässt sich allerdings erst abschätzen, wenn man das Fundament des Politikfeldes betrachtet, das wesentlich mit den USA verknüpft ist.

Die von der zweiten Administration unter US-Präsident Donald Trump getroffenen Entscheidungen zur weitgehenden Auflösung der US-amerikanischen Entwicklungspolitik sind tiefgreifend. Die Tragweite der Kursänderung lässt sich allerdings erst abschätzen, wenn man das Fundament des Politikfeldes betrachtet, das wesentlich mit den USA verknüpft ist.

Die von der zweiten Administration unter US-Präsident Donald Trump getroffenen Entscheidungen zur weitgehenden Auflösung der US-amerikanischen Entwicklungspolitik sind tiefgreifend. Die Tragweite der Kursänderung lässt sich allerdings erst abschätzen, wenn man das Fundament des Politikfeldes betrachtet, das wesentlich mit den USA verknüpft ist.

Transparency portals in development cooperation serve two main functions: accountability to a specialist audience and communication with the wider public. In this policy brief, we conduct an international comparison to demonstrate how transparency portals could better fulfil these requirements.
As part of a broader effectiveness agenda, donors are pursuing the goal of greater transparency. In line with this international agenda, transparency is intended to promote learning and improve predictability for partner countries, as well as combatting corruption and fulfilling accountability requirements. Taken together, these factors can contribute to greater development effectiveness.
Donors also hope that their work will receive greater public support. By providing detailed information, experts will be better able to assess the quality of development projects. The aim is to initiate a process of learning and improvement, and to convince the general public that taxpayers’ money is being used effectively. Citizens can use the portals to understand project content and develop their own views.
However, current debates suggest a more complex dynamic. The “Bike Lanes in Peru” project caused a scandal in Germany. Against the backdrop of the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), individual projects became politicised. Accordingly, transparency portals can also have unintended consequences. For example, information can be taken out of context, leading to misunderstandings and legitimate criticism of individual projects going unanswered.
Donors can mitigate these negative effects by redesigning transparency portals. In times of declining approval ratings and cuts to development budgets, they should use the portals to communicate in a targeted manner and demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in honest debate. The following recommendations could help with this:
• Even greater transparency of impact data: Although progress is being made in transparent reporting on project content and financial data, detailed project data on impact measurement and results, as set out in logical frameworks (logframes), is lacking. Increasing transparency in this area could improve development effectiveness.
• Additional investment in communication: Information that is provided in accordance with internationally comparable standards must be translated for a lay audience. In many donor countries, a large proportion of the population has no fixed positive or negative attitude towards development cooperation. Targeted, group-oriented communication should appeal to these people more directly.
• Openness to criticism and discourse: Development policy actors often resist critical examination of their work in public debate. They tend to respond defensively to criticism, whether general or specific. However, informed discussions based on project data from the portals offer an opportunity to openly discuss ineffective projects and, if necessary, replace them with effective ones.

Transparency portals in development cooperation serve two main functions: accountability to a specialist audience and communication with the wider public. In this policy brief, we conduct an international comparison to demonstrate how transparency portals could better fulfil these requirements.
As part of a broader effectiveness agenda, donors are pursuing the goal of greater transparency. In line with this international agenda, transparency is intended to promote learning and improve predictability for partner countries, as well as combatting corruption and fulfilling accountability requirements. Taken together, these factors can contribute to greater development effectiveness.
Donors also hope that their work will receive greater public support. By providing detailed information, experts will be better able to assess the quality of development projects. The aim is to initiate a process of learning and improvement, and to convince the general public that taxpayers’ money is being used effectively. Citizens can use the portals to understand project content and develop their own views.
However, current debates suggest a more complex dynamic. The “Bike Lanes in Peru” project caused a scandal in Germany. Against the backdrop of the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), individual projects became politicised. Accordingly, transparency portals can also have unintended consequences. For example, information can be taken out of context, leading to misunderstandings and legitimate criticism of individual projects going unanswered.
Donors can mitigate these negative effects by redesigning transparency portals. In times of declining approval ratings and cuts to development budgets, they should use the portals to communicate in a targeted manner and demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in honest debate. The following recommendations could help with this:
• Even greater transparency of impact data: Although progress is being made in transparent reporting on project content and financial data, detailed project data on impact measurement and results, as set out in logical frameworks (logframes), is lacking. Increasing transparency in this area could improve development effectiveness.
• Additional investment in communication: Information that is provided in accordance with internationally comparable standards must be translated for a lay audience. In many donor countries, a large proportion of the population has no fixed positive or negative attitude towards development cooperation. Targeted, group-oriented communication should appeal to these people more directly.
• Openness to criticism and discourse: Development policy actors often resist critical examination of their work in public debate. They tend to respond defensively to criticism, whether general or specific. However, informed discussions based on project data from the portals offer an opportunity to openly discuss ineffective projects and, if necessary, replace them with effective ones.

Transparency portals in development cooperation serve two main functions: accountability to a specialist audience and communication with the wider public. In this policy brief, we conduct an international comparison to demonstrate how transparency portals could better fulfil these requirements.
As part of a broader effectiveness agenda, donors are pursuing the goal of greater transparency. In line with this international agenda, transparency is intended to promote learning and improve predictability for partner countries, as well as combatting corruption and fulfilling accountability requirements. Taken together, these factors can contribute to greater development effectiveness.
Donors also hope that their work will receive greater public support. By providing detailed information, experts will be better able to assess the quality of development projects. The aim is to initiate a process of learning and improvement, and to convince the general public that taxpayers’ money is being used effectively. Citizens can use the portals to understand project content and develop their own views.
However, current debates suggest a more complex dynamic. The “Bike Lanes in Peru” project caused a scandal in Germany. Against the backdrop of the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), individual projects became politicised. Accordingly, transparency portals can also have unintended consequences. For example, information can be taken out of context, leading to misunderstandings and legitimate criticism of individual projects going unanswered.
Donors can mitigate these negative effects by redesigning transparency portals. In times of declining approval ratings and cuts to development budgets, they should use the portals to communicate in a targeted manner and demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in honest debate. The following recommendations could help with this:
• Even greater transparency of impact data: Although progress is being made in transparent reporting on project content and financial data, detailed project data on impact measurement and results, as set out in logical frameworks (logframes), is lacking. Increasing transparency in this area could improve development effectiveness.
• Additional investment in communication: Information that is provided in accordance with internationally comparable standards must be translated for a lay audience. In many donor countries, a large proportion of the population has no fixed positive or negative attitude towards development cooperation. Targeted, group-oriented communication should appeal to these people more directly.
• Openness to criticism and discourse: Development policy actors often resist critical examination of their work in public debate. They tend to respond defensively to criticism, whether general or specific. However, informed discussions based on project data from the portals offer an opportunity to openly discuss ineffective projects and, if necessary, replace them with effective ones.

The global development landscape entering 2026 is shaped by deep geopolitical disruptions, significantly intensified by the return of President Trump and the acceleration of systemic rivalry, conflict and multipolar competition. Development policy now unfolds in an environment where multilateral norms are weakening, Western cohesion is fracturing and Global South actors increasingly exercise greater agency through strategies of multi-alignment. Cuts to ODA budgets across traditional donor countries, paralysis in the UN development system and US hostility towards Agenda 2030 have collectively unsettled the development architecture, prompting a proliferation of commissions and processes seeking to rethink future cooperation. We identify four issues that we think will be of high importance for global development policy in 2026 and beyond and situate these within the context outlined above.
Issue I. China’s transition towards high-income status and the implications for its evolving role in global development debates Economically, China is approaching graduation from the list of ODA-eligible countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), yet politically it continues to claim “developing country” status as part of a deliberate strategy to anchor itself within Global South coalitions. This duality provides significant diplomatic and narrative leverage. China’s expanding suite of global initiatives – from the Belt and Road Initiative to the new Global Governance Initiative – gives it increasing influence over international agenda-setting, especially as some Western actors retreat from traditional development roles. OECD countries must, therefore, craft engagement strategies that can accommodate China’s hybrid positioning while defending coherent standards for global responsibility-sharing.
Issue II. Russia’s influence in the Global South Although Russia lacks a credible development model, it wields significant spoiler power through arms provision, disinformation operations and especially nuclear energy cooperation. Rosatom’s integrated nuclear packages are appealing to many African countries, creating long-term dependencies and expanding Moscow’s geopolitical reach – an area largely overlooked in Western development strategies.
Issue III. The rise of non-democratic governance across much of the Global South and its consequences for global governance With the majority of the population now living in electoral autocracies or closed autocracies, democratic backsliding undermines the foundations of global governance. Normative contestation, institutional fragmentation, legitimacy deficits, geopolitical bargaining and uneven provision of global public goods increasingly shape multilateral cooperation.
Issue IV. How both Southern middle powers and smaller countries are adjusting to the changing environment Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa and the Gulf states are capitalising on systemic volatility to expand influence through multi-alignment, new coalitions and diversified cooperation instruments. For external actors, accepting multi-alignment as a stable feature will be essential for building effective, issue-based partnerships in areas such as climate, health, food systems and digital public infrastructure.

Professor Andy Sumner is a professor of International Development at King’s College London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

The global development landscape entering 2026 is shaped by deep geopolitical disruptions, significantly intensified by the return of President Trump and the acceleration of systemic rivalry, conflict and multipolar competition. Development policy now unfolds in an environment where multilateral norms are weakening, Western cohesion is fracturing and Global South actors increasingly exercise greater agency through strategies of multi-alignment. Cuts to ODA budgets across traditional donor countries, paralysis in the UN development system and US hostility towards Agenda 2030 have collectively unsettled the development architecture, prompting a proliferation of commissions and processes seeking to rethink future cooperation. We identify four issues that we think will be of high importance for global development policy in 2026 and beyond and situate these within the context outlined above.
Issue I. China’s transition towards high-income status and the implications for its evolving role in global development debates Economically, China is approaching graduation from the list of ODA-eligible countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), yet politically it continues to claim “developing country” status as part of a deliberate strategy to anchor itself within Global South coalitions. This duality provides significant diplomatic and narrative leverage. China’s expanding suite of global initiatives – from the Belt and Road Initiative to the new Global Governance Initiative – gives it increasing influence over international agenda-setting, especially as some Western actors retreat from traditional development roles. OECD countries must, therefore, craft engagement strategies that can accommodate China’s hybrid positioning while defending coherent standards for global responsibility-sharing.
Issue II. Russia’s influence in the Global South Although Russia lacks a credible development model, it wields significant spoiler power through arms provision, disinformation operations and especially nuclear energy cooperation. Rosatom’s integrated nuclear packages are appealing to many African countries, creating long-term dependencies and expanding Moscow’s geopolitical reach – an area largely overlooked in Western development strategies.
Issue III. The rise of non-democratic governance across much of the Global South and its consequences for global governance With the majority of the population now living in electoral autocracies or closed autocracies, democratic backsliding undermines the foundations of global governance. Normative contestation, institutional fragmentation, legitimacy deficits, geopolitical bargaining and uneven provision of global public goods increasingly shape multilateral cooperation.
Issue IV. How both Southern middle powers and smaller countries are adjusting to the changing environment Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa and the Gulf states are capitalising on systemic volatility to expand influence through multi-alignment, new coalitions and diversified cooperation instruments. For external actors, accepting multi-alignment as a stable feature will be essential for building effective, issue-based partnerships in areas such as climate, health, food systems and digital public infrastructure.

Professor Andy Sumner is a professor of International Development at King’s College London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

The global development landscape entering 2026 is shaped by deep geopolitical disruptions, significantly intensified by the return of President Trump and the acceleration of systemic rivalry, conflict and multipolar competition. Development policy now unfolds in an environment where multilateral norms are weakening, Western cohesion is fracturing and Global South actors increasingly exercise greater agency through strategies of multi-alignment. Cuts to ODA budgets across traditional donor countries, paralysis in the UN development system and US hostility towards Agenda 2030 have collectively unsettled the development architecture, prompting a proliferation of commissions and processes seeking to rethink future cooperation. We identify four issues that we think will be of high importance for global development policy in 2026 and beyond and situate these within the context outlined above.
Issue I. China’s transition towards high-income status and the implications for its evolving role in global development debates Economically, China is approaching graduation from the list of ODA-eligible countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), yet politically it continues to claim “developing country” status as part of a deliberate strategy to anchor itself within Global South coalitions. This duality provides significant diplomatic and narrative leverage. China’s expanding suite of global initiatives – from the Belt and Road Initiative to the new Global Governance Initiative – gives it increasing influence over international agenda-setting, especially as some Western actors retreat from traditional development roles. OECD countries must, therefore, craft engagement strategies that can accommodate China’s hybrid positioning while defending coherent standards for global responsibility-sharing.
Issue II. Russia’s influence in the Global South Although Russia lacks a credible development model, it wields significant spoiler power through arms provision, disinformation operations and especially nuclear energy cooperation. Rosatom’s integrated nuclear packages are appealing to many African countries, creating long-term dependencies and expanding Moscow’s geopolitical reach – an area largely overlooked in Western development strategies.
Issue III. The rise of non-democratic governance across much of the Global South and its consequences for global governance With the majority of the population now living in electoral autocracies or closed autocracies, democratic backsliding undermines the foundations of global governance. Normative contestation, institutional fragmentation, legitimacy deficits, geopolitical bargaining and uneven provision of global public goods increasingly shape multilateral cooperation.
Issue IV. How both Southern middle powers and smaller countries are adjusting to the changing environment Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa and the Gulf states are capitalising on systemic volatility to expand influence through multi-alignment, new coalitions and diversified cooperation instruments. For external actors, accepting multi-alignment as a stable feature will be essential for building effective, issue-based partnerships in areas such as climate, health, food systems and digital public infrastructure.

Professor Andy Sumner is a professor of International Development at King’s College London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

Das DIW Berlin und das OECD Centre Berlin haben am 8. Dezember 2025 die neue Veranstaltungsreihe „DIW-OECD Industrial Strategy Dialogue” gestartet. Sie bietet eine Plattform für den Dialog zwischen wichtigen Akteur*innen aus Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und Wissenschaft, um über aktuelle ...

Auf dem 2025 European Winter Meeting der Econometric Society, das vom 7. bis 9. Dezember in Nicosia auf Zypern stattfand, wurden Lavina Kinne und Virginia Sondergeld mit dem Best Paper Prize ausgezeichnet. Das prämierte Projekt der beiden heißt: “Meet my family: women in leadership and gender ...

Islamwissenschaftler Guido Steinberg sagt, es sei nun leichter nachzuvollziehen, wer im Assad-Regime verantwortlich war.

Ein US-Strategiepapier ruft äußerst besorgte Reaktionen bei europäischen Politikern hervor. Der Bündnisexperte erklärt, worauf das Papier hinauswolle - aber dass dies nichts Neues sei.

The outcome of the Belém climate conference can be compared to a watered-down cocktail, a weak COPirinha, if you will: plenty of crushed ice, little substance to give it strength, and missing sugar in the form of climate finance to sweeten the deal. Hence, while the tumbler of climate diplomacy was well filled, its content hardly lifted spirits of anyone hoping for decisive climate action.

The outcome of the Belém climate conference can be compared to a watered-down cocktail, a weak COPirinha, if you will: plenty of crushed ice, little substance to give it strength, and missing sugar in the form of climate finance to sweeten the deal. Hence, while the tumbler of climate diplomacy was well filled, its content hardly lifted spirits of anyone hoping for decisive climate action.

The outcome of the Belém climate conference can be compared to a watered-down cocktail, a weak COPirinha, if you will: plenty of crushed ice, little substance to give it strength, and missing sugar in the form of climate finance to sweeten the deal. Hence, while the tumbler of climate diplomacy was well filled, its content hardly lifted spirits of anyone hoping for decisive climate action.

Das reichste Prozent der Welt vermehrt sein Vermögen massiv, während Millionen weiter abrutschen. Das ist ein Risiko für die Demokratie – auch in Deutschland. , Ein neuer Oxfam-Bericht versetzt einer ohnehin düsteren Entwicklung den nächsten Schlag: Ein kleiner Kreis Superreicher verzeichnet binnen zwölf Monaten enorme Zugewinne – während Millionen weiter abrutschen. Inzwischen kontrolliert das reichste Prozent weltweit mehr Vermögen als die gesamte ärmere ...