Defining a sustainable development target space for 2030 and 2050

With the establishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), countries worldwide agreed to a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all. This ambition, however, exposes a critical gap in science-based insights, namely on how to achieve the 17 SDGs simultaneously. Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help explore the needed systems' transformations. This requires a clear definition of the "target space." The 169 targets and 232 indicators used for monitoring SDG implementation cannot be used for this; they are too many, too broad, unstructured, and sometimes not formulated quantitatively. Here, we propose a streamlined set of science-based indicators and associated target values that are quantifiable and actionable to make scenario analysis meaningful, relevant, and simple enough to be transparent and communicable. The 36 targets are based on the SDGs, existing multilateral agreements, literature, and expert assessment. They include 2050 as a longer-term reference point. This target space can guide researchers in developing new sustainable development pathways

Defining a Sustainable Development Target Space for 2030 and 2050

With the establishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), countries worldwide agreed to a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all. This ambition, however, exposes a critical gap in science-based insights, namely on how to achieve the 17 SDGs simultaneously. Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help explore the needed systems' transformations. This requires a clear definition of the "target space." The 169 targets and 232 indicators used for monitoring SDG implementation cannot be used for this; they are too many, too broad, unstructured, and sometimes not formulated quantitatively. Here, we propose a streamlined set of science-based indicators and associated target values that are quantifiable and actionable to make scenario analysis meaningful, relevant, and simple enough to be transparent and communicable. The 36 targets are based on the SDGs, existing multilateral agreements, literature, and expert assessment. They include 2050 as a longer-term reference point. This target space can guide researchers in developing new sustainable development pathways

Zielkonflikte in der Demokratieförderung: Pauschallösungen und unvollständige Demokratisierung verhindern

Weltweit stehen westliche Geber in der Demokratieförderung vor einem Dilemma. Demokratie ist zwar ein wichtiges politisches Ziel, aber sie fürchten, dass der Weg dorthin ein ebenso wertvolles Ziel – politische Stabilität – unterminieren und in den Empfängerstaaten vermehrt Gewalt auslösen könnte. Wir gehen hier der Frage nach, ob es für diese Befürchtungen empirische Belege gibt, und wie Geber bei potenziellen Zielkonflikten zwischen Demokratisierung und Stabilität abwägen können. Jüngste Forschungsarbeiten des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) zeigen, dass es für die Sorge, Demokratisierung könne destabilisierend wirken, tatsächlich gewisse empirische Belege gibt (Leininger et al. 2012; Ziaja 2013). Diese Befürchtungen sollten allerdings nicht vom größeren Problem ablenken, „auf halber Strecke stehen zu bleiben“. Hybride Regime mit autoritären Merkmalen, die sich hinter einer Fassade formal-demokratischer Institutionen verstecken, stellen auf lange Sicht ein größeres Sicherheitsrisiko dar als Versuche, in hybriden Regimen Demokratie zu fördern. Demokratieförderung ist also wünschenswert, aber häufig ein Risiko. Laut einer neuen Studie des DIE, die 47 afrikanische Staaten einbezieht, führt Demokratieförderung zwar kurzfristig zu mehr Demonstrationen und Ausschreitungen, nicht aber zu Bürgerkriegen. Somit deutet stärkere Mobilisierung der Bevölkerung eher auf die Wirksamkeit von Hilfe hin, als dass sie ein Grund zur Besorgnis wäre. Damit Demokratieförderung langfristig wirken und die Forderungen der Bevölkerung kanalisieren kann, muss sie lokalen Akteuren beim Aufbau von bedarfsgerechten Institutionen helfen. Häufig ließen sich Eliten aus Angst vor möglichen destabilisierenden Folgen von Bürgerbeteiligung zur Beschneidung des Wettbewerbs in jungen Demokratien verleiten. Dies ist keine gute Idee: Elitäre Transitionen führen laut unserer Forschung zu weniger nachhaltigen politischen Konstellationen als offener Wettbewerb. Externe Förderung gelingt am besten, wenn Geber mar¬ginalisierte Gruppen darin unterstützen, sich am Institutionenaufbau zu beteiligen. Das wird am besten durch gleichzeitiges Engagement vieler Geber erreicht. Diversität auf der Geberseite erhöht die Chancen, eine kontextgemäße institutionelle Struktur zu finden, anstatt dem Partnerland eine solche überzustülpen. Daraus ergibt sich, dass es für die Notwendigkeit eines Sequenzierungsansatzes in der Demokratieförderung - d. h. erst Stabilität, dann Demokratie – kaum empirische Belege gibt. Die meisten Länder haben bereits vor über zwei Jahrzehnten (formal) den Weg zur Demokratie einge¬schlagen. Ein gradualistischer Ansatz mit gleichzeitigem Aufbau von staatlichen Institutionen und der Förderung breiter Beteiligung ist darum der vielversprechendere Weg. Unsere Empfehlungen lauten daher in Kürze: Die Demokratieförderung diversifizieren. Endogene, inklusive politische Entwicklung fördern. Beim Aufbau politischer Institutionen durch den Einsatz von Konditionalität auf Konfliktlösungsmechanismen bestehen. Zielkonflikte in Phasen demokratischer Transition abwägen

Conflicting objectives in democracy promotion: avoiding blueprint traps and incomplete democratic transitions

Western donors attempting to promote democracy across the globe face a dilemma. Democracy is a highly valued policy goal, but they are fearful that the path to democ¬racy will undermine another highly valued goal – political stability – and potentially cause widespread violence in the recipient countries or beyond. We ask whether these fears have empirical support and how donors can balance the potentially conflicting objectives of democratisation and stability when intervening in governance matters. Recent research at the German Development Institute shows that fears about the destabilising effects of democratisation do indeed have some empirical support (Leininger et al 2012; Ziaja 2013). But these fears deflect attention from the bigger problem of “getting stuck in the middle”. Hybrid regimes that exhibit authoritarian traits under a façade of formal democratic institutions constitute, in the long run, a larger security risk than attempts to make these countries more democratic. Hybrid regimes also hamper economic development, thus constituting an additional, indirect, risk of violent conflict. The promotion of democracy is hence a laudable effort, but it may itself carry risks. A recent DIE study of 47 African countries suggests that support for democracy increases popular mobilisation in the short run, leading to increased demonstrations and riots. However, the same study produced no evidence that democracy support is likely to spark civil wars. Increased mobilisation is thus rather a sign of aid effectiveness than a reason to worry. Yet, to be effective in the long run and to help steer popular demands into peaceful channels, democracy support must assist domestic actors in building institutions that fit the needs of their society. In the past, the potentially de¬stabilising consequences of popular participation have seduced would-be engineers of social change into re¬stricting competition in young democracies. This is a bad idea, as our recent research shows: narrow, elite pacts have, on average, led to worse political outcomes than open competition. The best contribution that donors can make from the out¬side is to enable marginalised groups to participate in crea¬ting the institutional setup. This is best achieved when many donors promote democracy simultaneously. Only then can they avoid the “blueprint trap”, which snaps shut when donors try to impose – advertently or inadvertently – an institutional setup on the partner country that does not fit its society’s needs. Diversity on the donor side increases the chances of finding a context-adequate institutional design. These findings suggest that an overly cautious sequencing approach to democracy promotion – stability first, only then democracy – has little empirical support. Most countries in the world embarked on a (formally) democratic path more than two decades ago. A gradualist approach that builds institutions while at the same time encouraging mobilisation is thus the more viable approach. Recommendations in brief: Promote democracy now Keep democracy aid diverse Encourage endogenous, inclusive polity design Enforce conditionality on conflict resolution mechanisms in institutional design Balance trade-offs of democratic transitions

Social cohesion: A new definition and a proposal for its measurement in Africa

Social cohesion is key for sustainable development. While social cohesion has suffered in many societies from the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, high levels of social cohesion have helped to overcome critical situations during the pandemic in other societies. As a consequence, protecting and strengthening social cohesion has become an increasingly central goal for most countries and the international community. Despite the strong interest in the topic, the questions of how to define social cohesion and make it an observable phenomenon through proper measurement are still contested, in both academia and policy circles. To date, no consistent, temporally and geographically spread-out data on the different elements of social cohesion exists that would allow for a global analysis of social cohesion. This rather fragmented picture of analytical approaches calls for a more universal definition and measurement of social cohesion. This paper aims to provide a narrow and measurable definition of social cohesion that travels across regions and countries. Conceptually, it proposes a definition of social cohesion that incorporates the core elements of existing and widely used definitions of social cohesion across disciplines (trust, identity, cooperation for the common good). Our contribution is to offer a definition of social cohesion that is broad enough to cover the essentials holding societies together while at the same time keeping it lean enough to analyse the causes and consequences of social cohesion, for instance the relationship between social cohesion and inequalities or political institutions. Methodologically, we propose an application of our concept to the African context. It is not only a first step towards a more global and inter-regional measurement of social cohesion, but also the basis for further knowledge-creation, the identification of patterns of social cohesion and the analysis of its causes and consequences. From a policy-oriented perspective, a more unified definition of the core elements of social cohesion and its measurement can inform policies that aim at protecting and fostering social cohesion. In development cooperation, it will help not only to build indicators for designing programme objectives and for evaluation and monitoring, but also to advance evidence-based theories of change.2nd revised editio

Defining a sustainable development target space for 2030 and 2050

With the establishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), countries worldwide agreed to a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all. This ambition, however, exposes a critical gap in science-based insights, namely on how to achieve the 17 SDGs simultaneously. Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help explore the needed systems' transformations. This requires a clear definition of the "target space." The 169 targets and 232 indicators used for monitoring SDG implementation cannot be used for this; they are too many, too broad, unstructured, and sometimes not formulated quantitatively. Here, we propose a streamlined set of science-based indicators and associated target values that are quantifiable and actionable to make scenario analysis meaningful, relevant, and simple enough to be transparent and communicable. The 36 targets are based on the SDGs, existing multilateral agreements, literature, and expert assessment. They include 2050 as a longer-term reference point. This target space can guide researchers in developing new sustainable development pathways

Defining a sustainable development target space for 2030 and 2050

With the establishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), countries worldwide agreed to a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all. This ambition, however, exposes a critical gap in science-based insights, namely on how to achieve the 17 SDGs simultaneously. Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help explore the needed systems' transformations. This requires a clear definition of the "target space." The 169 targets and 232 indicators used for monitoring SDG implementation cannot be used for this; they are too many, too broad, unstructured, and sometimes not formulated quantitatively. Here, we propose a streamlined set of science-based indicators and associated target values that are quantifiable and actionable to make scenario analysis meaningful, relevant, and simple enough to be transparent and communicable. The 36 targets are based on the SDGs, existing multilateral agreements, literature, and expert assessment. They include 2050 as a longer-term reference point. This target space can guide researchers in developing new sustainable development pathways

Defining a sustainable development target space for 2030 and 2050

With the establishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), countries worldwide agreed to a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all. This ambition, however, exposes a critical gap in science-based insights, namely on how to achieve the 17 SDGs simultaneously. Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help explore the needed systems' transformations. This requires a clear definition of the "target space." The 169 targets and 232 indicators used for monitoring SDG implementation cannot be used for this; they are too many, too broad, unstructured, and sometimes not formulated quantitatively. Here, we propose a streamlined set of science-based indicators and associated target values that are quantifiable and actionable to make scenario analysis meaningful, relevant, and simple enough to be transparent and communicable. The 36 targets are based on the SDGs, existing multilateral agreements, literature, and expert assessment. They include 2050 as a longer-term reference point. This target space can guide researchers in developing new sustainable development pathways

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Structural Transformation in Africa:Evidence for Action

This study analyses how strengths and weaknesses of economic, societal, political and environmental structures played out during the Covid-19 crisis in Africa since March 2020. Its main aim is to improve evidence on the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic on African countries and, based on that evidence, identify policy implications and formulate recommendations. It comprises the analysis of (a) direct impacts of the pandemic as well as of policy responses such as lockdowns and their potential determinants; (b) indirect effects of lockdowns and policy responses to the pandemic on economic, social, political and environmental domains in the light of structural strengths and weaknesses of African countries. In general, the study is based on the assumption that economic and other structures determine the magnitude and direction of the pandemic's impact on the short and long run. Its added value is the thematic comprehensiveness and the comparative analysis of country clusters. Amongst many other findings, the analysis shows the important role of social cohesion for coping with the pandemic and for sustainable development on the longer run. This implies the need for (a) material and immaterial investments in good and trustful relationships within societies and between society and the state; (b) incentives for increasing cooperation of individuals for a common good need to be at the core of future development strategies. It identifies a trias of political priorities, which are all equally important and relate to each other. They contain (a) inclusive and green economic development that must be linked to (b) the establishment and improvement of universal social systems (health, education, social protection in case of poverty, old age and unemployment) as well as (c) a redesign of political institutions that are capable and inclusive to collect revenues and provide public goods. (d) None of these policy priorities will be effective on the long run without saving ecosystems