Funding flows for climate change research on Africa: Where do they come from and where do they go?
Africa has only contributed a small fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions yet faces disproportionate risks from climate change. This imbalance is one of many inequities associated with climate change and raises questions concerning the origin, distribution and thematic prioritization of funding for climate-change research on Africa. This article analyses a database comprising USD 1.51 trillion of research grants from 521 organizations around the world and covering all fields of research from 1990 to 2020. At most 3.8% of global funding for climate-change research is spent on African topics – a figure incommensurate with Africa’s share of the world population and vulnerability to climate change. Moreover, institutions based in Europe and North America received 78% of funding for climate research on Africa, while African institutions received only 14.5%. Research on climate mitigation received only 17% of the funding while climate impacts and adaptation each received around 40%. Except for Egypt and Nigeria, funding supported research on former British colonies more than other African countries. The findings highlight the need to prioritise research on a broader set of climate-change issues in Africa and to increase funding for Africa-based researchers in order to strengthen African ownership of research informing African responses to climate change.
Mariana Llorens Zabala
Mariana is a Junior Research Fellow at NUPI and works on the Training for Peace Programme, in the Research group on peace, conflict and developmen...
Editorial: The New Right’s internationalism
The editorial team welcomes you to the final issue of 2021. For this issue, convened by Minda Holm, one of New Perspectives’ Associate Editors, we have brought together a group of invited essays on the Internationalism of the New Right. As an object of analysis for political science and International Relations, the New Right refers to intellectual movements that have emerged since the 1980s, including Reaganite economic conservatives, theorists and philosophers like Alexandr Dugin and Alain de Benoist, and political movements that have swept to power across the globe, but with particular successes in Central and Eastern Europe. Globally these movement include actors as diverse as Bolsonaro in Brasil, Modi in India, and Putin in Russia, and in Central and Eastern Europe are exemplified by Fidesz in Hungary and Prawo I Sprawiedliwosc in Poland. So far, academic conversations have happened mostly in parallel, rather than with each other, drawing seemingly different conclusions as to both who we are speaking of, and what their global ideas entail – both for world politics, and IR as a field (see Abrahamsen et al., 2020; Azmanova and Dakwar, 2019; De Orellana and Michelsen, 2019; Drolet and Williams, 2018). In this special issue, we bring together some leading voices to reflect on the transnational and international relations between these movements.
Huawei, 5G and Security: Technological Limitations and Political Responses
How did Chinese 5G providers, such as Huawei, become a security concern in the USA and Europe? Were the security concerns related to 5G and Chinese suppliers based upon technological features of the systems, or were they a product of geopolitical rivalry? How did European approaches to 5G distinguish themselves from those of the USA? This article addresses these questions using an interdisciplinary approach via the framework of securitization theory. The authors argue that the technological features of 5G made securitization more likely compared to 4G, and that screening and control of software was unlikely to defuse securitization concerns. They also show how Europe chose its own path for the securitization of 5G. In short, the article argues that the American macrosecuritization of China largely failed in Europe, whereas the niche securitization of 5G was more successful.
Ecosystemic politics: Analyzing the consequences of speaking for adjacent nature on the global stage
This article introduces a conceptual framework for analysing and comparing the broader or unintended effects of cooperation anchored in border-crossing ecosystems. The importance of addressing this lacuna in our scholarship on such sub-global cooperation is underscored by research in political geography that has demonstrated how the creation of scale is an important expression of power relations and how interaction with the materiality of different kinds of spaces necessitates distinct political technologies (and thus may have distinct effects). The article introduces three key analytical angles central to policy field studies in international sociology and demonstrates their utility through a case of the Arctic/Arctic Council. These analytical angles – networks (what are the relationships shaping the field?), hierarchies (who leads and how does leadership work?), and norms for political behavior – capture key consequences and dynamics of ecosystemic politics in a concise fashion that lends itself to cross-case comparison. The Arctic case focuses on the changing network positions and roles of non-Arctic actors over time, as an initial exploration of the broader ordering effects of such forms of cooperation. The findings suggest that most non-Arctic actors have experienced a decline in their centrality in Arctic cooperation, even as the Arctic has received intensified global interest and the number of participants in Arctic Council work has increased. Further comparative work along these lines would leave us better equipped to assess whether states speaking for their own immediate environs is better – and if so, in which ways – than seeking common solutions to global challenges.
Norges debatt om kinesiske investeringer: Fra velvillig til varsom
The debate in Norway regarding security concerns related to Chinese investments has seen a notable change in character over a short period of time. From a situation where there was little discernible debate at all, and where negative coverage of Chinese investment flows were mainly concerned with working environment issues, Chinese capital flows to Norway have now also become part of the debate on national security. Two particularities make the case of Norway especially interesting with regards to the broader Nordic debates over the issues discussed in this Fokus section. The Norwegian economy has been particularly well placed to benefit from the extraordinary Chinese economic growth, but Norway has also been in a particularly problematic political position towards China over the last decade. The contrast between these two factors has been a structuring trait of the Norwegian China debate. Nevertheless, the Norwegian public debate on China has been relatively positive over a long period of time. This has been given impetus by the positive experiences reported from the Norwegian enterprises that have been the target of Chinese acquisitions. However, lately, the public debate has increasingly come to regard the issue also through a political and security-related lens. This changing character is not due to specific events concerning Chinese activities in Norway, as much as being a reflection of broader regional and global trends. The question of Huawei’s role in the coming construction of the 5G network has been a particularly important driver in this regard, as well as conductive link to the international change in opinion.
Covid-19, global handel og medisinsk beredskap
During the second quarter of 2020, Covid-19 led to the second largest setback for world trade after the second world war. But the value of trade soon recovered, to a normal level at the end of the year. The pandemic hit sectors unevenly, with a strong decline for oil, industrial and investment goods, while trade in food and drugs was maintained and trade with protective and medical equipment exploded. Via the oil price, Covid-19 hit Norwegian exports harder than imports, and erased the trade surplus. During the 2020 crisis, China delivered the increase for protective medical equipment while Western Europe delivered the drugs. Western Europe has 3/4 of world exports of drugs, and for Norway, trade with Europe is an important aspect of preparedness. During the 2020 crisis, Norway benefited from European cooperation through open borders for trade; common approval of medicines; and access to vaccines. Several countries introduced export restrictions for medical goods; India also for drugs, with resulting supply problems in Norway for some items. Global vaccine distribution will be a new test for world trade, and Norway contributes financially. Globalisation of the value chains for off-patent drugs (generics) has in recent year led to frequent supply shortages, independently from the Covid-19 crisis.
Strengthening Fragile States through Taxation (FRAGTAX)
How is the political authority to tax established, exercised and maintained over time? State-building requires predictable income. Without a domestic revenue base, even core activities states are expe...
Scandinavia as an arena for Chinese economic statecraft
China's utilisation of economic statecraft as a foreign policy tool challenges the accustomed distinction between Norwegian business policies, and Norwegian security policy. This opens for a nove...
Understanding and Strenthening EU Foreign & Security Policy in a Complex and Contested World (JOINT)
The JOINT project analyses these dynamics while addressing the question of how the EU and its member states can make their foreign and security policy structures more joined-up and sustainable....