Globalisation and Development Cooperation
Working Paper 171/2018: Promoting Private Sector for Development: The rise of blended finance in EU aid architecture
Abstract:
Since 2007, the EU has been pushing for blended finance to mobilise private sector for development. This is a novel and controversial financial policy coinciding with the growing debate on “beyond aid” and the emergence of new financial tools and actors that are actively engaged with the global development agenda. Since the 1960s, grants and concessional loans (or more simply, aid) have been the dominant type of development finance provided by the EU, together with debt relief and the costs of technical assistance. But aid is no longer the main source of development finance for most developing countries, now replaced by private financial flows: foreign direct investment (FDI), remittances and philanthropy. Business-led economic growth is at the core of the 2030 global development agenda seen as the primary driver of investments, jobs creation and production of goods and services. In consequence, the EU is moving to combine aid with other public and private resources (blended finance) to catalyse and leverage additional funds from the private sector. Promoting private sector for development: the rise of blended finance in EU aid architecture will critically analyse the emergence and evolution of EU blended finance to support the private sector to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) by 2030 and the potential implications for EU development cooperation.
Quotation:
Mah, Luís (2018). “Promoting private sector for development : the rise of blended finance in EU aid architecture”. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão – CEsA /CSG – Documentos de Trabalho nº 171/2018.
Working Paper 169/2018: Beyond Aid: How trade interests Trumps EU-ASEAN development cooperation
Abstract:
The emergence of new state donors from Latin America, Middle East and Asia as key development partners offering alternative models of development cooperation has had a significant impact on the workings of the international development cooperation arena (Hackenesch & Janus, 2013). The main distinction between the traditional and emerging donors has been the fact that, unlike the former, the latter present themselves as interested parties in what is described to be a mutually beneficial relationship with their development partner countries. In general, these emerging donors have been less eager to respect the dominant OECD-DAC normative discourse on quantity and quality of aid to focus more on mutual economic gains from the relationship. In exchange for aid from these emerging donors, beneficiary countries have been less constrained by political conditionalities and less subjected to scrutiny or oversight on macroeconomic policies. The EU Agenda for Change adopted in 2011 is the basis of the current EU´s development policy and aims at responding to the changes undergoing in the international development arena. One of the key principles and policy priorities of this agenda is differentiation which manifests the EU intention to increasingly provide aid only to Low Income countries (LICs). Beyond Aid: How trade interests Trumps EU-ASEAN development cooperation will critically analyse to what extent this shift to differentiation is shaping the relations between the EU and ASEAN. It will argue that EU relations with ASEAN have always been differentiated from other developing countries as they have been subordinated to trade interests rather than development goals.
Quotation:
Mah, Luís (2018). “Beyond Aid: How trade interests Trumps EU-ASEAN development cooperation”. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão – CEsA/ CSG – Documentos de Trabalho nº 169/2018.
Working Paper 164/2018: The Context of Conflict Resolution: International relations and the study of peace and conflict
Abstract:
The Context of Conflict Resolution: International relations and the study of peace and conflict provides a brief review of almost one century of academic research within the discipline of International Relations with a focus on the thinking about Peace and Conflict and its links to approaches in Conflict Resolution. The framework of analysis is based on the definition of science, what is studied and how it is studied, which delimits the analysis into the four debates in IR: between 1919 and the 1940s, the idealist versus realist debate; in the 1950s and 1960s, the traditionalist versus behaviourist debate; in the 1970s and 1980s, the inter-paradigm debate, and, since the 1990s, the rationalist versus reflectivist debate. This paper identifies how the classical conception of security centred on the state, the military and external threats was broadened by different approaches to include other actors (individuals, groups, societies, civilizations), other sectors (economic, political, social, environmental) and internal threats. In tandem, it maps the epistemological and sometimes ontological challenges to positivism and rationalism found in (Neo) Realism, (Neo) Liberalism and Marxism, by a set of post-positivist and reflective theories or approaches, such as the cases of Human Security, Feminism, Post-structuralism, Constructivism, Post-Colonialism, Critical Studies, and the Copenhagen School. The emergence and development of all these theories and approaches are historically contextualized alongside developments of Conflict Resolution approaches.
Quotation:
Sousa, Ricardo Real P. (2018). “The Context of Conflict Resolution: International relations and the study of peace and conflict”. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão – CEsA/ CSG Documentos de Trabalho nº 164/2018.
Working Paper 162/2017: Is the Logistics Sector in China Still a Constraint to Supplying its Domestic Market?
Abstract:
China is a market ripe with opportunities for those who dare challenge its vastness; its alluring promise of an outstanding growth possibility thanks to its immense and growing internal market presents itself to companies as a place of both enormous challenges but also of potentially great rewards. The logistics sector is considered to be one essential vector of competitiveness for the development of consumer market supply. Logistics plays a tremendously important role in a company’s activity. Poor logistics can lead to lost opportunities and unsatisfied customers, among other things, while having a good logistics system in place might work as a source of competitive advantage. In Is the Logistics Sector in China Still a Constraint to Supplying its Domestic Market? we continue the Ilhéu (2006) research that concluded that the Chinese logistics and distribution system was one of the myriad problems Portuguese companies encountered when trying to establish a presence in China; poor infrastructure and a generalized lack of value-added services in Chinese logistics companies were some of the widespread problems faced. The highly fragmented nature of the current Chinese market, high road tolls or uneven taxes between provinces, all contribute to the maintenance of an inefficient system that imposes a disproportionately high cost of logistics in the country. A new era for logistics is being ushered in by China since competitiveness and e-commerce requires the modernization of infrastructures as a global mindset management. Some research questions then arise: are Chinese logistics still a burden to the efficiency of Chinese domestic market? How has the Chinese logistical sector progressed in the last eleven years? Is the lack of value-added services still perceived by foreign companies as a constraint to entering the Chinese market?
Quotation:
Ilhéu, Fernanda e Gonçalo Simões (2017). “Is the Logistics Sector in China Still a Constraint to Supplying its Domestic Market?”. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão – CEsA/ CSG – Documentos de Trabalho nº 162/2017
