This paper investigates the impact of aid for trade (AfT) targeted at trade policies on the participation of recipient countries in global value chains (GVCs), and how this impact varies with their prevailing political regimes. In democratic countries, the need for the authorities to account for the interests of various stakeholders (e.g., lobbies, trade unions) can compromise the allocation, use, and effectiveness of AfT. In contrast, less democratic regimes are typically more insulated from political pressures, which may lead to more effective outcomes of aid. At the same time, integration into some complex GVCs requires efficient and democratic institutions, to which these products are sensitive. Employing a sample of 110 countries and data covering 2002-2018, we control for standard determinants of GVC participation, while examining the effect of AfT and the moderating role of the political regime in place. Our estimation addresses the endogeneity of aid through an appropriate instrumentation strategy. Our results suggest that the effect of AfT is mostly positive in autocratic regimes, indicating more effective trade policy reforms. When we account for regional disparities, we find evidence that AfT for trade policy is also impactful in some democratic regimes. This might suggest that the efficacy of AfT is not strictly regime-dependent, but hinges on the government’s commitment to carry out significant reforms leading to greater participation in the global economy.
This paper investigates the impact of aid for trade (AfT) targeted at trade policies on the participation of recipient countries in global value chains (GVCs), and how this impact varies with their prevailing political regimes. In democratic countries, the need for the authorities to account for the interests of various stakeholders (e.g., lobbies, trade unions) can compromise the allocation, use, and effectiveness of AfT. In contrast, less democratic regimes are typically more insulated from political pressures, which may lead to more effective outcomes of aid. At the same time, integration into some complex GVCs requires efficient and democratic institutions, to which these products are sensitive. Employing a sample of 110 countries and data covering 2002-2018, we control for standard determinants of GVC participation, while examining the effect of AfT and the moderating role of the political regime in place. Our estimation addresses the endogeneity of aid through an appropriate instrumentation strategy. Our results suggest that the effect of AfT is mostly positive in autocratic regimes, indicating more effective trade policy reforms. When we account for regional disparities, we find evidence that AfT for trade policy is also impactful in some democratic regimes. This might suggest that the efficacy of AfT is not strictly regime-dependent, but hinges on the government’s commitment to carry out significant reforms leading to greater participation in the global economy.
This paper investigates the impact of aid for trade (AfT) targeted at trade policies on the participation of recipient countries in global value chains (GVCs), and how this impact varies with their prevailing political regimes. In democratic countries, the need for the authorities to account for the interests of various stakeholders (e.g., lobbies, trade unions) can compromise the allocation, use, and effectiveness of AfT. In contrast, less democratic regimes are typically more insulated from political pressures, which may lead to more effective outcomes of aid. At the same time, integration into some complex GVCs requires efficient and democratic institutions, to which these products are sensitive. Employing a sample of 110 countries and data covering 2002-2018, we control for standard determinants of GVC participation, while examining the effect of AfT and the moderating role of the political regime in place. Our estimation addresses the endogeneity of aid through an appropriate instrumentation strategy. Our results suggest that the effect of AfT is mostly positive in autocratic regimes, indicating more effective trade policy reforms. When we account for regional disparities, we find evidence that AfT for trade policy is also impactful in some democratic regimes. This might suggest that the efficacy of AfT is not strictly regime-dependent, but hinges on the government’s commitment to carry out significant reforms leading to greater participation in the global economy.
Many colonies in Africa attained independence through negotiated settlements. However, several others engaged in armed liberation struggles, for example, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Newly independent states provided liberation movements with bases on their territories and political, military, intellectual, ideological, material, and moral support. In West Africa, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a notable pan-Africanist, declared in his Independence Day speech in 1957, “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.” In East Africa, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of independent Tanzania and Kenya respectively, showed similar commitment to Pan-Africanism and anticolonialism by hosting refugees fleeing armed struggles in Southern Africa. Tanzania hosted the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee supported anticolonial resistance and liberation movements. President Nyerere supported them for “challenging injustices of empire and apartheid” and declared, “I train freedom fighters”. He encouraged Tanzanians living around liberation movement camps to welcome these movements and their freedom fighters and also protect them from agents of colonial governments. Support also came from many other countries on the continent including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Algeria. The latter provided sanctuary to representatives of liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.
Many colonies in Africa attained independence through negotiated settlements. However, several others engaged in armed liberation struggles, for example, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Newly independent states provided liberation movements with bases on their territories and political, military, intellectual, ideological, material, and moral support. In West Africa, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a notable pan-Africanist, declared in his Independence Day speech in 1957, “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.” In East Africa, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of independent Tanzania and Kenya respectively, showed similar commitment to Pan-Africanism and anticolonialism by hosting refugees fleeing armed struggles in Southern Africa. Tanzania hosted the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee supported anticolonial resistance and liberation movements. President Nyerere supported them for “challenging injustices of empire and apartheid” and declared, “I train freedom fighters”. He encouraged Tanzanians living around liberation movement camps to welcome these movements and their freedom fighters and also protect them from agents of colonial governments. Support also came from many other countries on the continent including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Algeria. The latter provided sanctuary to representatives of liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.
Many colonies in Africa attained independence through negotiated settlements. However, several others engaged in armed liberation struggles, for example, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Newly independent states provided liberation movements with bases on their territories and political, military, intellectual, ideological, material, and moral support. In West Africa, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a notable pan-Africanist, declared in his Independence Day speech in 1957, “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.” In East Africa, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of independent Tanzania and Kenya respectively, showed similar commitment to Pan-Africanism and anticolonialism by hosting refugees fleeing armed struggles in Southern Africa. Tanzania hosted the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee supported anticolonial resistance and liberation movements. President Nyerere supported them for “challenging injustices of empire and apartheid” and declared, “I train freedom fighters”. He encouraged Tanzanians living around liberation movement camps to welcome these movements and their freedom fighters and also protect them from agents of colonial governments. Support also came from many other countries on the continent including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Algeria. The latter provided sanctuary to representatives of liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.
More than a year ago US President Donald Trump effectively dissolved the national development agency USAID by executive order on his first day in office. Since then, other Western countries have also implemented significant cuts to their development budgets, albeit less drastically than the US. This includes Germany, whose budget for development cooperation (DC) has been shrinking since 2024. The budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) does not cover the entirety of DC, but it does reflect the general trend. It stands at just over 10 billion euros for the current year, 2026 – in 2024, it was still 11.1 billion euros.
More than a year ago US President Donald Trump effectively dissolved the national development agency USAID by executive order on his first day in office. Since then, other Western countries have also implemented significant cuts to their development budgets, albeit less drastically than the US. This includes Germany, whose budget for development cooperation (DC) has been shrinking since 2024. The budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) does not cover the entirety of DC, but it does reflect the general trend. It stands at just over 10 billion euros for the current year, 2026 – in 2024, it was still 11.1 billion euros.
More than a year ago US President Donald Trump effectively dissolved the national development agency USAID by executive order on his first day in office. Since then, other Western countries have also implemented significant cuts to their development budgets, albeit less drastically than the US. This includes Germany, whose budget for development cooperation (DC) has been shrinking since 2024. The budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) does not cover the entirety of DC, but it does reflect the general trend. It stands at just over 10 billion euros for the current year, 2026 – in 2024, it was still 11.1 billion euros.
Welche Möglichkeiten haben Regierungen in Ländern niedrigen oder mittleren Einkommens, den aktuellen Ausfall von Mittelzuflüssen aus der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu kompensieren? Der Artikel zeigt: Nachhaltig wirksame Steuerreformen sind schwierig, aber nicht unmöglich. Es gibt durchaus Möglichkeiten, Steuersysteme aufkommensstärker und gerechter zu gestalten. Häufig können bereits Investitionen in die Modernisierung der Steuerverwaltungen positive Resultate hervorbringen, etwa bei der Grundsteuer. In anderen Fällen sind steuerpolitische Maßnahmen erforderlich, zum Beispiel bei der Besteuerung digitaler Dienstleistungen (einschließlich von Finanzdienstleistungen). Auch über Steuervergünstigungen wäre zu reden. Sie werden z.B. für Investitionsförderung oder Armutsbekämpfung eingesetzt, verfehlen jedoch häufig ihre Ziele und verringern das Steueraufkommen erheblich. Für die Umsetzung von Reformen gilt: Mehr als Belehrungen von außen wirkt häufig der horizontale Austausch mit Nachbarländern auf regionaler Ebene. International wäre eine gerechtere Verteilung von Besteuerungsrechten wichtig, damit Staaten weltweit die Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Fiskalsysteme weiter erhöhen können. Darauf zu warten, macht aber keinen Sinn. Besser ist es, die Spielräume zu nutzen, die sich bereits heute bieten.
Welche Möglichkeiten haben Regierungen in Ländern niedrigen oder mittleren Einkommens, den aktuellen Ausfall von Mittelzuflüssen aus der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu kompensieren? Der Artikel zeigt: Nachhaltig wirksame Steuerreformen sind schwierig, aber nicht unmöglich. Es gibt durchaus Möglichkeiten, Steuersysteme aufkommensstärker und gerechter zu gestalten. Häufig können bereits Investitionen in die Modernisierung der Steuerverwaltungen positive Resultate hervorbringen, etwa bei der Grundsteuer. In anderen Fällen sind steuerpolitische Maßnahmen erforderlich, zum Beispiel bei der Besteuerung digitaler Dienstleistungen (einschließlich von Finanzdienstleistungen). Auch über Steuervergünstigungen wäre zu reden. Sie werden z.B. für Investitionsförderung oder Armutsbekämpfung eingesetzt, verfehlen jedoch häufig ihre Ziele und verringern das Steueraufkommen erheblich. Für die Umsetzung von Reformen gilt: Mehr als Belehrungen von außen wirkt häufig der horizontale Austausch mit Nachbarländern auf regionaler Ebene. International wäre eine gerechtere Verteilung von Besteuerungsrechten wichtig, damit Staaten weltweit die Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Fiskalsysteme weiter erhöhen können. Darauf zu warten, macht aber keinen Sinn. Besser ist es, die Spielräume zu nutzen, die sich bereits heute bieten.
Welche Möglichkeiten haben Regierungen in Ländern niedrigen oder mittleren Einkommens, den aktuellen Ausfall von Mittelzuflüssen aus der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu kompensieren? Der Artikel zeigt: Nachhaltig wirksame Steuerreformen sind schwierig, aber nicht unmöglich. Es gibt durchaus Möglichkeiten, Steuersysteme aufkommensstärker und gerechter zu gestalten. Häufig können bereits Investitionen in die Modernisierung der Steuerverwaltungen positive Resultate hervorbringen, etwa bei der Grundsteuer. In anderen Fällen sind steuerpolitische Maßnahmen erforderlich, zum Beispiel bei der Besteuerung digitaler Dienstleistungen (einschließlich von Finanzdienstleistungen). Auch über Steuervergünstigungen wäre zu reden. Sie werden z.B. für Investitionsförderung oder Armutsbekämpfung eingesetzt, verfehlen jedoch häufig ihre Ziele und verringern das Steueraufkommen erheblich. Für die Umsetzung von Reformen gilt: Mehr als Belehrungen von außen wirkt häufig der horizontale Austausch mit Nachbarländern auf regionaler Ebene. International wäre eine gerechtere Verteilung von Besteuerungsrechten wichtig, damit Staaten weltweit die Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Fiskalsysteme weiter erhöhen können. Darauf zu warten, macht aber keinen Sinn. Besser ist es, die Spielräume zu nutzen, die sich bereits heute bieten.
The construction and use of datasets have become an important practice in Earth system governance research. By systematically cataloguing various outcomes, policy issues, actors, sites, and processes, datasets enhance the reliability, transparency, and replicability of research. Yet, despite growing interest, efforts to share data, integrate datasets, and develop common standards remain fragmented. This Perspective surveys various scholarly efforts to create datasets and provides a classification of the emerging dataset landscape in the field of Earth system governance. Drawing on examples from our own research and group discussions, we identify current best practices and lessons learned regarding data collection, management, and integration, as well as data usability and sharing. We argue that the design of datasets is not a neutral technical exercise, but has implications for how global environmental governance is theorized and studied. We also highlight how greater attention to data infrastructures can strengthen the relevance of research for policy practitioners and other stakeholders beyond academia.
The construction and use of datasets have become an important practice in Earth system governance research. By systematically cataloguing various outcomes, policy issues, actors, sites, and processes, datasets enhance the reliability, transparency, and replicability of research. Yet, despite growing interest, efforts to share data, integrate datasets, and develop common standards remain fragmented. This Perspective surveys various scholarly efforts to create datasets and provides a classification of the emerging dataset landscape in the field of Earth system governance. Drawing on examples from our own research and group discussions, we identify current best practices and lessons learned regarding data collection, management, and integration, as well as data usability and sharing. We argue that the design of datasets is not a neutral technical exercise, but has implications for how global environmental governance is theorized and studied. We also highlight how greater attention to data infrastructures can strengthen the relevance of research for policy practitioners and other stakeholders beyond academia.
The construction and use of datasets have become an important practice in Earth system governance research. By systematically cataloguing various outcomes, policy issues, actors, sites, and processes, datasets enhance the reliability, transparency, and replicability of research. Yet, despite growing interest, efforts to share data, integrate datasets, and develop common standards remain fragmented. This Perspective surveys various scholarly efforts to create datasets and provides a classification of the emerging dataset landscape in the field of Earth system governance. Drawing on examples from our own research and group discussions, we identify current best practices and lessons learned regarding data collection, management, and integration, as well as data usability and sharing. We argue that the design of datasets is not a neutral technical exercise, but has implications for how global environmental governance is theorized and studied. We also highlight how greater attention to data infrastructures can strengthen the relevance of research for policy practitioners and other stakeholders beyond academia.
Die Bundesregierung hat sich auf Entlastungen bei den hohen Sprit- und Energiepreisen geeinigt. Zu den geplanten Maßnahmen eine Einschätzung von Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):
Die bislang angekündigten Entlastungsmaßnahmen der Bundesregierung bei den Energiepreisen greifen zu kurz und sind in Teilen sogar kontraproduktiv. Die temporäre Senkung der Energiesteuer auf Benzin und Diesel birgt die Gefahr, dass ein erheblicher Teil der Entlastung nicht bei den Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern ankommt, sondern auf den Konten der Mineralölkonzerne landet. Gleichzeitig setzt sie falsche Anreize, da sie den notwendigen Rückgang des Energieverbrauchs im Straßenverkehr nicht unterstützt und damit den Preisdruck an anderer Stelle eher verstärken kann.
Auch die steuerfreie Einmalzahlung von bis zu 1.000 Euro durch Arbeitgeber ist kein zielgenaues Instrument. Sie kommt vor allem Beschäftigten in größeren und finanzstarken Unternehmen zugute, während viele andere Gruppen leer ausgehen – etwa Arbeitslose, Rentnerinnen und Rentner, Studierende oder Beschäftigte in kleinen Betrieben. Die Maßnahme ist damit sozial unausgewogen und erreicht gerade die besonders belasteten Haushalte nur unzureichend.
Insgesamt weist das Maßnahmenpaket eine deutliche soziale Schieflage auf. Dies droht die gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz für die wirtschaftspolitischen Maßnahmen der Bundesregierung zu untergraben. Entscheidend wäre eine stärker zielgerichtete Entlastung, die insbesondere Haushalte mit niedrigen und mittleren Einkommen in den Blick nimmt.