Neueste Publikationen

The (geo)politics of UN80: missed opportunities

Wed, 13 May 2026 10:56:27 +0200

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN80 Initiative in March 2025. Faced with the US government’s increasingly hostile approach to the UN, UN80 was presented as a reform geared towards making the UN system “fit for purpose”. However, this policy brief argues that both the UN bureaucracy and member states have missed key opportunities to turn UN80 into a tool for reconfiguring UN multilateralism and providing space for multilateral cooperation that – despite rising geopolitical tensions – effectively addresses transnational challenges. The UN Secretariat, on the one hand, has pushed for a rushed reform agenda through an avalanche of bureaucratic reshuffling and technocratic ideas that are driven primarily by the logic of efficiency gains. Despite investing considerable efforts, it has failed to develop a coherent organisational and governance vision for the future of the UN that would help the organisation adapt to shifts in global power and policy preferences. Although welcoming reform efforts in principle, member states – on the other hand – have neither provided proactive guidance on desired reform outcomes, nor offered strategic input on the reform proposals put forward by the UN bureaucracy. They have failed to take up their role as political reform governors of a UN system in need of adapting to new geopolitical realities. Although the trajectory of UN80 to date has been far from ideal, the Initiative could still serve as a first step towards more fundamental reform efforts that address member states’ diverging preferences and attempt to tackle multilateral governance deficits. Inorder to highlight what is at stake, the policy brief outlines three scenarios of how post-UN80 dynamics might unfold, helping stakeholders identify what kind of UN system they would like to see and which steps might be necessary to get there.
Scenario 1. Faltering momentum: the phase-out of UN80 contributes to UN fragmentation and decline. Member states and the UN bureaucracy continue working through the UN80 Initiative’s to-do list until everything is either proclaimed done, watered down or silently abandoned. This leaves major challenges unaddressed, contributing to increasing levels of fragmentation and dysfunction across the UN system.
Scenario 2. Bold moves: strategic UN reform ambitions supersede technocratic logics. Member states leave decisions about efficiency gains to UN chief executives while prioritising and spearheading more ambitious reforms. They task the new Secretary-General with designing a high-level debate on the purpose(s) and the future governance of the UN system that reaffirms the UN as the multilateral centre of world politics.
Scenario 3. Muddling through: a combination of technocratic and governance reforms keeps the UN afloat. Cost-cutting reforms continue while a coalition of reform-oriented small and medium-sized member states pushes for a selective reform of multilateral governance. The result is a somewhat smaller UN system that, while not fundamentally transformed, is better equipped to navigate geopolitical tensions.

International development cooperation and the emerging global order

Wed, 13 May 2026 10:28:40 +0200

A little more than a year into the Trump 2.0 era, the “post–Cold War” international order as we know it is coming to an end. Amid increasing volatility and conflict, the shape and character of the order that will replace it are dangerously unclear. There are ambitions by so-called middle powers – including some member states of the EU – to provide an effective response, but questions remain as to their potential impact. Three scenarios can be envisaged: (1) an Orwellian dystopia dominated by three global powers – the United States, China and Russia – each with its own sphere of influence; (2) a “new Cold War” between two rival capitalist models: “Western” liberal democracy versus “Eastern” oligarchy and (3) the survival of the rules-based international order, possibly as a counterweight to oligarchic spheres of influence. For this scenario to materialise, middle powers must address the liberal order’s inherent weaknesses so that it delivers for all of its members. This discussion paper brings together 14 contributions drawing on the German Institute of Development and Sustainability’s (IDOS) broad regional and thematic expertise to examine these questions. The contributions analyse key actors, cooperation themes and regions. Each contribution analyses the implications of the changing global order for its specific area of focus and explores how international cooperation in general – and development cooperation in particular – can contribute to a more just and sustainable international system. The paper aims to provide readers with a range of perspectives on the state of international development cooperation and its possible evolution. Taken together, the contributions provide insights into the roles that international development cooperation may play in an emerging global order and identify priorities for reforms.

The new flexi-lateralism: International cooperation in an era of raw power politics

Tue, 12 May 2026 08:26:30 +0200

Escalatory attacks on multilateral rules and institutions in this era of raw power politics have plunged international politics into uncharted territory. Traditional alliances have been fractured and new partnerships between unlikely bedfellows are emerging. No longer in transition, the post-World War II world order is in rupture. This paper examines international cooperation under these conditions and argues that a new ‘flexi-lateralism’ is taking shape as a pragmatic response to changing times. We define the new flexi-lateralism as international cooperation expressed through adaptable modular tools and selective coalitions, anchored in UN norms, that proceeds even when universal commitments are openly contested and attacked. Our paper considers a set of initiatives launched around the Financing for Development (FfD) conference in Sevilla (July 2025) on the issue of debt servicing. We illustrate how cooperation often depends on selective participation, informal venues and issue-specific coalitions, rather than comprehensive universal bargains. The paper uses ‘flexi-lateralism’ as a term for these flexible multilateral forms that sit between classic UN-style universality and narrow great-power deals. We conclude that international cooperation in this era is neither automatically collapsing nor simply fragmenting. It is adapting and reconfigured through overlapping clubs and coalitions with uneven implications for the Global South and the North.

The new flexi-lateralism: five building blocks for development cooperation in a fractured world

Tue, 12 May 2026 08:22:12 +0200

The OECD conference “will focus on action, connecting geopolitical realities with development priorities and translating vision into practical strategic directions.” So how does the flexi-lateralism framework help? We argue that cooperation is reconfiguring into selective coalitions using discrete modular instruments, orchestrated through intermediaries, connected to universal norms but no longer dependent on universal participation. Whether this configuration can maintain legitimacy while delivering speed and adaptation is an open question. Delegates in Paris could look at the design principles we set out that distinguish workable flexi-lateral arrangements from fragmentation, namely, transparency, open accession pathways, and normative alignment with agreed development goals. These are the features that differentiate new forms of cooperation.

The new U.S. Development Doctrine: business deals

Tue, 12 May 2026 08:17:34 +0200

Looking back, the return of Donald Trump to the White House, and, in the early phase, the role played by Elon Musk in reshaping the U.S. foreign aid approach has, to a large extent, foreshadowed what the second Trump administration would become. This profile consists of: (i) crude transactionalism, (ii) a strong ideological foundation (with significant elements of authoritarian libertarianism), (iii) a high degree of chaos with decisions not necessarily based on strategic or even tactical considerations, and (iv) an obsession with disruption. The wide range of current initiatives, coalitions, commissions, and conferences that are discussing development cooperation, as well as efforts to reflect on narratives, international aid governance, and resource mobilisation, are thus operating in a highly hostile environment shaped by the U.S. administration assault on long standing policy norms. European leaders could speak out more clearly about what can be seen as an open challenge those norms. They could also advance a more proactive narrative and, importantly, refuse to de facto repurpose development institutions and decide not to follow the fundamental ODA reductions by the United States.

Introduction: development cooperation in the post-post–Cold War era

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:40:00 +0200

A little more than a year into the Trump 2.0 era, it has become apparent that the “post–Cold War” international order is in its death throes. For three decades, global affairs have been shaped by a system dominated by the United States as the world’s only genuinely global power. American power was embedded in a “rules-based” international order founded on respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, alongside liberal-democratic norms such as “free” global economic exchange and institutionalised governance. Led by the United States and its Western allies, this order was considered by some in the early 1990s to be the “end of history”, a supposedly final stage in human ideological, political and economic evolution (Fukuyama, 1989). While the order was never without its practical and moral failings, and although many countries did not benefit from its protection, it was widely considered an improvement over past systems for organising international interdependence. Today, however, the liberal internationalist project faces a profound crisis and is being challenged by geopolitical competition and a hollowing out from within (Ikenberry, 2024).

How does the “Shadow Economy” operate in Egypt’s manufacturing sector? (in Arabic)

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:38:59 +0200

Caught between weak employment opportunities and widespread informal employment, Egypt’s manufacturing sector faces a dual challenge. Existing incentives in the labour market encourage both firms and workers to engage in informal employment arrangements. Firms benefit from lower labour costs and greater flexibility, while workers often seek higher take-home pay, driven by limited confidence in the benefits associated with formal employment. Many workers perceive tax and social insurance deductions as offering few tangible benefits or effective safety nets that would compensate for the reduction in current income. At the same time, policies aimed at promoting formal job creation that rely exclusively on stricter enforcement may backfire by increasing hiring costs, thereby creating an additional obstacle for job creation as well as for policymakers.

Germany’s development cooperation reform in perspective

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:35:00 +0200

The changing global order is reshaping the domestic politics of foreign aid. As many OECD governments shift their focus towards defence spending and narrower national interests, contributions to global public goods and development are declining. Development budgets, in particular, are traditionally among the first casualties of public spending cuts. Germany is no exception. Its core development budget has fallen from €12.4 billion in 2021 to €9.9 billion in 2026 – a decline of around 20 per cent. This decrease is driven by overall pressure on public spending and a decisive shift towards defence. A recent study projects a contested but illustrative estimate, suggesting that aid cuts could lead to an additional 9.4 million deaths by 2030 (da Silva et al., 2026). In January 2026, Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) presented a reform strategy that directly addresses these pressures. The strategy advocates a shift towards a more targeted approach, shaped in part by these budget cuts. However, it also addresses long-standing reform needs that predate them. Three aspects are particularly noteworthy: a clear focus on least developed countries (LDCs), where aid can have relatively high impact; explicit thematic prioritisation that recognises over-fragmentation as a key problem; and a stronger commitment to evidence and results, anchored in the statement that “effectiveness and evidence are central principles for steering German development cooperation” (BMZ, 2026). Possible concrete steps towards achieving these goals can be found in a joint CGD–IDOS policy paper on prioritisation (Hughes, Janus, Mitchell, & Röthel, 2025). However, questions remain about the strategy, most notably the apparent tensions between the focus on LDCs and ambitions to promote German business interests, the vague implementation plans and the fundamental question of political viability: Can these reforms generate meaningful change within the German development cooperation system and its wider political authorising environment?

Shifting ideology or shifty tautology? The EU’s policy on international partnerships in turbulent geopolitical times

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:28:00 +0200

The changing global order presents a complex set of challenges for Europe and is shaping the context in which its development policy operates. Successive global crises, growing geopolitical uncertainty and a volatile international environment have placed the EU in a near-permanent “crisis mode”, forcing it to react to events as they arise and often challenging its usual decision-making processes. For many years, the EU has often been compared to a slow-moving tanker in world politics, capable of significant influence but limited in terms of rapid decision-making and strategic agility. In recent months, however, the EU has become a think tank in international politics: passively commenting rather than actively shaping. Instead of influencing and steering global agendas through its strong rules-based institutions, the EU is plagued by a defensive siege mentality (de Wilde, 2025). Although the European Green Deal was once described as Europe’s “man on the moon moment” in 2019, it turned out the spaceship never actually made it beyond Earth’s orbit. Instead, the EU has rolled back aspects of its Green Deal ambition to reduce dependence on external inputs, including fossil fuels – a reversal that was already looking short-sighted long before Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in March 2026.

The UN at a crossroads: UN80 and the future of multilateralism

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:25:00 +0200

Since Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency, the UN system has come under unprecedented pressure. UN Secretary-General António Guterres and the UN Secretariat were already struggling with a protracted liquidity crisis (caused by recurrent delayed or incomplete payment of assessed contributions from major contributors such as the United States and China), looming reductions in major donors’ voluntary contributions and rising geopolitical tensions among UN member states (Camelli & Patz, 2026; Haug, 2024). But the Trump administration’s disdain for multilateralism in general, and the UN in particular, poses an even more fundamental and pressing challenge to the UN, both financially and (geo)politically. Since the establishment of the UN in 1945, the United States has played a key role as the host for the UN headquarters in New York and the largest contributor to UN budgets. Although relations between the UN and the US government have long been complex – with influential anti-UN voices persistently present in US domestic politics (Browne & Nakamura, 2009; Mingst, 2003) – it had never reached a point at which broader US support for the organisation appeared to be under threat. This has changed, as exemplified by the formal or de facto withdrawal of the United States from many parts of the UN system, including withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2025, as well as disengaging from 31 other UN entities in 2026 (The White House, 2026). With the faltering hegemonic position of the United States, a general turn to overt geopolitics (Haug, 2026) and “my-country-first” policies, as well as long-standing criticism about the organisation’s inefficiencies, duplication and fragmentation – driven by donors’ chronic uncoordinated funding behaviour – the UN’s position as the centre of an imperfectly functioning multilateral system is at stake. Other major powers and blocs – from China and the BRICS grouping to the EU and a diverse group of medium-sized states from across the globe – have been unable to put forward a joint response to the fickle and often adversarial posture of the United States. Many have instead exhibited more transactional and self-focused behaviour, such as advocating for UN staff relocations to their own countries. So far, there is no shared vision of what the future of multilateral cooperation through the UN system – including its development, humanitarian and global regulatory agencies – ought to look like. Against this backdrop, we first outline why recent reform attempts under the so-called UN80 Initiative – triggered primarily by the shift in US policy towards multilateral organisations – have missed several opportunities to strategically reform and strengthen the UN system. We then argue that UN multilateralism is still needed – maybe more than ever before. Finally, we turn to recommendations on what stakeholders should do in order to make the UN fit for purpose in an increasingly challenging global environment.

China and the future of international cooperation

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:21:00 +0200

Over the last two decades, the People’s Republic of China has been central to significant shifts in the geography of international cooperation. With fundamental shifts in the United States’ posture towards international partnerships under the second Trump administration, China’s relevance has grown further, albeit on its own terms. In what follows, we discuss how recent international disruptions have affected China, how China-led cooperation has been evolving over the last decade and what more China-centred forms of cooperation mean for the future of bilateral and multilateral partnerships.

The OECD Development Assistance Committee in the New World Order: five challenges for the future of global development policy

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:08:00 +0200

The year 1961 can be seen as the “Big Bang” of international development policy. First, in that year, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD was established. In the context of the Cold War, the United States pushed for an international system to support developing countries. In 1961, US President John F. Kennedy consolidated existing efforts to assist developing nations into USAID. Last but not least, in the same year, Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) was established in what was then West Germany as a dedicated ministry to support developing regions (Bracho, Carey, Hynes, Klingebiel, & Trzeciak-Duval, 2021). The DAC has long been both a symbol of, and a “norm entrepreneur” in, development cooperation (Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021; Janus, 2022; Sumner & Klingebiel, 2025). It is often seen as synonymous with the form of development cooperation practised by “traditional donors”, that is, a club of high-income countries. Linked to this has been the criticism that the governance of ODA reflects persistent global power inequalities. At the same time, the DAC has served as the central forum in which key norms and quality standards of development cooperation have been negotiated over more than 60 years. It was within the DAC that the concept of “official development assistance” (ODA) was developed. ODA refers to public resources provided on concessional terms to promote economic and social development in developing countries. DAC members are also regularly assessed through peer review processes that assess their adherence to agreed standards (Ashoff, 2013). Like the role of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in education policy, these reviews in theory serve both disciplinary and supportive functions. In practice, no DAC member country has wished to be publicly criticised for failing to comply with jointly adopted DAC standards and relevant international agreements. Last but not least, the DAC members also issue statements of good practice and position papers on the international development agenda. These documents have been influential and have, for instance, influenced the 2000 UN Millennium Declaration and the eight Millennium Development Goals adopted – which in turn evolved into the current 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). DAC membership has expanded considerably since its creation, growing to 33 members today. Several nations once classified as developing countries, such as Spain, South Korea and a number of states that joined the EU in and after 2004, later sought and obtained DAC membership. At the same time, a growing number of OECD members, including Turkey, Mexico and Chile, have decided not to join the DAC. This reflects differing approaches to development cooperation and varying degrees of commitment to ODA-based norms. Countries that do not see themselves as part of a collective commitment around the ODA target of 0.7 per cent – such as Mexico, which historically identified with the Global South and was a founding member of the G77 before joining the OECD in 1994 – have so far remained outside the committee. Despite these variations, the United States played a decisive role in establishing the DAC as a rule-setting and coordinating body. US influence extended beyond institutional design. For decades, the United States also dominated personnel decisions and held the DAC chair until a rotating system was introduced (Bracho et al., 2021).

Navigating trade and development cooperation in a fragmenting global order

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:04:00 +0200

The rules-based trading system has been a central pillar of the post–Cold War international order. Predictable economic relations and lower trade barriers supported an unprecedented expansion of global trade and economic integration. Institutions such as the WTO helped establish a framework of shared principles designed to prevent protectionism and resolve disputes peacefully. This system contributed significantly to economic growth and poverty reduction, particularly in emerging and developing economies (e.g. Baldwin, 2016). However, the system has also faced mounting difficulties over time, with its gradual erosion becoming increasingly evident in the collapse of the Doha Development Round after 2008 and the paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body from 2019 onwards. More recently, unilateral trade measures, successive waves of US tariffs, rising geopolitical competition and the resurgence of industrial policy have not only undermined the multilateral trading system but also generated substantial disruptions and uncertainties in both trade and investment relations. Developing countries are among the most affected by these developments, not least because contemporary global trade involves more than just the exchange of final goods. Around 80 per cent of world trade now takes place within global value chains (GVCs) linked to transnational corporations, with production stages fragmented across multiple countries (UNCTAD, 2013). In these chains, developing countries typically occupy upstream positions and specialise in supplying raw materials or labour-intensive inputs, whereas more technologically complex and higher value-added activities are concentrated elsewhere. Especially economies in Latin America and the Caribbean as well as in Africa remain locked into low-complexity, low-margin tasks, whereas foreign-controlled firms dominate higher-value segments (ADB et al., 2025). This structural position renders developing countries particularly vulnerable to substitution and constrains economic diversification and development (e.g. Barrot, Calderón, & Servén, 2018). Against this background, trade-related development cooperation plays a crucial role. At the multilateral level, it does so by helping to sustain a fair and inclusive rules-based trading system. At the regional and country levels, it does so by strengthening institutions and investing in infrastructure as well as productive and trade capacities. These efforts also enhance developing countries’ attractiveness as investment destinations and trading partners within GVCs, helping them integrate more effectively into global markets and supporting a more resilient development pathway in an increasingly fragmented global order. This contribution begins by examining the implications of a fragmenting global order for trade. It then highlights why development cooperation in the field of trade remains vital before concluding with an exploration of how development cooperation can help build a more equitable and sustainable international trading system.

Emerging cooperation strategies in development finance amid a shifting global order

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:00:00 +0200

In the context of the changing global order and rising nationalism, several countries, including the United States and some European countries, have cut their official development assistance (ODA). The OECD forecasts a decline of ODA by around 23 per cent between 2024 and 2025 (OECD, 2026). At the same time there is a significant financing gap for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), currently estimated at about $4 trillion. Furthermore, the annual financing required to achieve the SDGs by 2030 increased by 36 per cent between 2015 and 2022, rising from $6.81 trillion to $9.24 trillion. This increase was driven by climate-related challenges, the impact of the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and rising food and energy prices. These two trends have led to a significant SDG financing gap, which is projected to reach $6.4 trillion by 2030, assuming that it continues to grow at the rate observed between 2015 and 2022. Furthermore, mounting debt obligations are exerting pressure on pivotal investments in health, education and climate resilience (OECD, 2025). According to the debt sustainability analysis of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, about half of low-income countries are either at high risk of debt distress or already in debt distress.

Global climate and environmental governance in a shifting global order

Mon, 11 May 2026 13:57:00 +0200

At the beginning of this decade, it briefly appeared that there might be space for enlightened optimism: As world leaders and international organisations grappled with the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, momentum had been gathering to “build back better” while also addressing the global ecological crisis (Bauer, 2021). However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine heralded a different turn of events and accelerated an already burgeoning renaissance of geopolitics. Combined with a surge in post-truth right-wing populism and corresponding shifts in national agendas across major democracies, these developments do not bode well for sustainable development, let alone a deep transformation towards global sustainability and planetary justice. Now what? This contribution seeks to address three overarching questions: What are the most important implications of the geopolitical turn for global climate and environmental governance? Why is international cooperation (still) relevant in this context? How can international cooperation bring its assumed relevance to bear and contribute to a more sustainable global order?