Over the last decade, non-core multilateral aid (especially trust funds, but also global programs, and joint programming) has increasingly replaced core contributions to multilateral aid institutions (MAIs). Unlike traditional multilateral assistance, this type of aid refers to bilateral donors’ voluntary contributions to specific activities, and makes use of separate funding channels and governance structures outside the MAIs’ executive boards, despite being managed by MAIs. Non-core contributions have recently enjoyed considerable popularity among bilateral donors since they allow them to earmark their contributions for specific development objectives. This in turn allows them to gain more influence over the allocation of multilateral aid, more visibility for their individual contributions, and higher financial flexibility since voluntary contributions are not subject to long-term international contracts. Furthermore, earmarking may help establish clearer objectives and a more transparent principal-agent relationship. However, non-core multilateral aid may pose severe risks for aid effectiveness. It may replace the core contributions to MAIs, complicate the budgeting of these organizations, inflate administrative costs and governance structures due to additional reporting, relinquish the expert knowledge of experienced MAI staff through newly created sub-structures, and attract their attention to shopping for funds. Moreover, donors may create funds to which little additional resources are channeled, causing sunk costs and organizational duplication with existing MAIs. From the perspective of recipients, non-core multilateral aid undermines developing country ownership and tends to make aid flows less predictable. If non-core multilateral aid is not in the interest of major international actors, notably the MAIs themselves, then why has there been such a strong increase over the last decade? Clarifying the concept of non-core multilateral aid and exploring recent trends, the project seeks to better understand the motivations of the key actors from MAIs and bilateral donor ministries, as well as to assess the consequences of non-core funding with respect to aid effectiveness. Interviews within international organizations will feed into comparative case studies across MAIs and provide a basis for the development of a game-theoretic public choice model that can finally be tested econometrically. The project thereby contributes to the existing literature on aid allocation and aid effectiveness, and notably to its recent strand on aid fragmentation. To the best of our knowledge, it will be the first systematic and comprehensive analysis of the new multilateral financing mechanisms. The results should help raise awareness among both international organizations and bilateral donors, of the associated problems and opportunities, and help MAIs to take a strategic approach towards these contributions. In light of the large variety of approaches to the topic suggested by a widely interdisciplinary literature, our project team consists of researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines including political science, economics, law, political philosophy, and anthropology. This ensures due consideration of legal and institutional aspects as well as questions of legitimacy and responsibility, along with the central political and economic analysis. The project team also covers the different institutional and sectoral specializations as required for a comprehensive analysis of such a wide-ranging, but new and largely unexplored phenomenon.
The „Netzwerk Psychische Gesundheit Schweiz“ [„Mental Health Network Switzerland“] has started its activities in December 2011 and consists of organizations from the mental health domain in Switzerland. The Network defines itself as a multisectoral, nationwide initiative for the promotion of mental health and the reduction of psychological diseases in Switzerland. The Network itself does not implement measures. However, it promotes knowledge transfer and exchanges of information and experiences among important actors in the field of mental health in Switzerland. Commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (SFOPH), the Department of Political Science evaluates the Mental Health Network Switzerland. This evaluation is formative, and contributes to the installation and further development of the Network. It not only assesses the underlying conception and development of the Network, but also its chances for success under the given restrictions. The recommendations of this evaluation will give support for upcoming decisions to take concerning the further development of the Network.
In the international relations literature, a sustained debate exists on whether and how intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) influence national state behaviour. Empirically, while much research has been done on how the European institutions affect member states’ interests and behaviour, research that looks at other IGOs in this context is still very limited, and focuses specifically on analysing whether membership to an organization affects state behaviour. In this research project, we will draw from rationalist and constructivist theories and negotiation research to consider the role of a particular feature of institutional design on future bargaining behaviour within an IGO. We posit that the way in which IGOs are designed affects state interests and behaviour, even if this was not intended in the first place. We will show that such has been the case within the negotiations under the United Nations Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) with the institutionalization of the differentiation of member states into ‘Annex I’ and ‘non-Annex I’ countries as a way of establishing different levels of commitment for different countries. While such differentiation allowed reaching an agreement and starting cooperation in the first place, evidence of the negotiation process under the UNFCCC suggests that by building these two rigid groups of countries (the ‘constructed peer groups’), an unnecessarily deep divide between them has been generated, which has politicized discussion in future negotiation rounds. The project expands on initial theoretical discussions and empirical findings that are summarized in a working paper by the applicants, and seeks to answer four main research questions: 1. What are the reasons that led to the creation of institutionalized country groupings with differential treatment in IGOs, and what are the characteristics of such groupings? Under what circumstances is it possible to agree to objective criteria for defining them? 2. Does the existence of institutionalized country groups affect IGO member states’ negotiation behaviour over time, leading to institutional path dependence? 3. Can rationalist arguments, such as the creation of new incentives for countries within these groups, explain such changed behaviour? 4. Or can constructivist theories of socialization and shared norms explain it? To answer these questions, the project will use a combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques. After a conceptual phase in which our ‘constructed peer group’ hypothesis is further substantiated with the existing literature, an initial qualitative comparative study across different IGOs will be used to investigate what factors in the negotiation process led to the creation of institutionalized country groups with differential treatment in different IGOs in the first place, and what factors determine the design characteristics of such country groups. Analysis of negotiation reports, secondary literature and interviews with negotiators and experts will inform the research. An econometric analysis based on traditional regression techniques and propensity score matching will elucidate, for the case of the climate change negotiations, whether the initial classification of countries into Annex I and non-Annex I has affected the future negotiation dynamics and what causal mechanisms have led to such effects, based on an own-coded dataset of oral statements during the negotiations under the UNFCCC throughout its lifetime. Qualitative case studies of the negotiation trajectories of individual member countries to the UNFCCC will be used to more deeply investigate the causes of the existing divide between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. The project is intended to result in the publication of a book, and in the preparation of a publicly available dataset of oral statements in the UNFCCC negotiations.
1. BACKGROUND The current constitution of BiH is based on Annex IV of the Dayton Peace Agreement and does not provide an adequate framework for a prosperous future of BiH. Switzerland is strongly supporting the process of constitutional reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 2005. The support was implemented in the frame of programs called “Platform Bosnia and Herzegovina: Contribution to Constitutional Changes”. Till now, three phases were implemented. The previous phases were implemented with the vision of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina aware of the need for and supportive to the process of constitutional reform as one of the principal conditions for the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Programs were tailored to achieve sensibility over constitutional issues of wider public, especially local communities and to support local actors in the process of constitutional changes. The previous phase (2008-2010) included some new and crucial features that should have enhanced the overall impact and increased ownership over the constitutional development process: collaboration with upper level of government/institutions, strengthening of institutional capacities (state building), demand driven activities and usage of regional/inter-municipal level through already existing structure-Entities Associations of Municipalities and Cities. Previous phases were able to build trust between BiH and Switzerland which resulted in the wish for continuation of the Swiss support. The fourth phase will build upon results and the experiences of past projects. Goals of the previous phases will be basically kept, but additional objectives regarding capacity building of the different institutional structures and democratization have been added, as Bosnia’s post-conflict ethnic politics will not disappear, even when there is agreement on constitutional reform. 2. OBJECTIVES (project component: Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau) A) Enhancing sustainable democratization and bridging the divide between the youth in BiH along ethnic and entity lines through capacity building of prospective postgraduate students in the domains of democratization, human rights and constitutional reform. The emphasis is on the development of potential future decision makers’ capability to critically analyse ways of designing mutual comprehension in a multicultural society. • Organization of a winter school in BiH and a summer school in Switzerland for 30-50 university students with particular emphasis on the institutional design for divided societies: electoral system, federalism, direct democracy, quotas and representation. Deepened skills will be offered both through theoretical background, empirical examples of other countries and practical experience provided by decision makers and opinion leaders. • Networking between BiH universities, both between Swiss and BiH universities and institutions (like ZDA, University of Zürich, NADEL) and possibility of exchange among students (both from within BiH and from Switzerland and other countries) strengthened. B) Capacity building of BiH parliamentary members and other politically relevant stakeholders is built up in order to help to overcome some of egregious flaws in BiH constitution. By addressing the constitution’s shortcomings, power-sharing and consensus at different levels (municipal, cantonal, entity) should be facilitated and institutional processes and decision making strengthened. This should also provide a basis for building a political consensus, culture of dialogue and exchange of experiences between Swiss, international and BiH experts. • Specific and joint workshops/expertise for BiH MPs are organized in order to build a base for strategic development in the context of constitutional changes.
In 2009, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (SFOPH) commissioned a research consortium composed of four institutions – Sucht Schweiz, Institut für Sucht- und Gesundheitsforschung ISGF, Institut universitaire de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Lausanne IUMSP, Institut für Begleit- und Sozialforschung IBSF – with establishing the Addiction Monitoring System in Switzerland (AMIS). AMIS aims at the regular provision of representative population data on the consumption of psychoactive substances (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs and pharmaceuticals) and on the individual and social consequences of such consumption. For that purpose, AMIS both draws on already existing data and collects new data. Given that the contract with the research consortium expires in 2014, the SFOPH has commissioned the Department of Political Science of the University of Zurich with an evaluation of AMIS, the results of which are to serve as a basis for negotiating a follow-up contract with the consortium.
This project investigates how individuals’ exposure to global competition influences their feeling of economic security and a wide range of policy preferences, and how the emergence of new conflict lines between beneficiaries and losers of globalization changes the constituencies of political parties.I argue that globalization has very heterogenous effects, which depend both on individuals' exposure to global competition and their factor-endowments. This suggests that even within the same industry, exposure to global competition can be harmful to some people, but not to others. In developed countries, high-skilled individuals in exposed industries or occupations can be characterized as “globalization winners,” because they can sell their skills to global markets. In contrast, low-skilled individuals working in an exposed sector face serious problems. The goods they produce are most likely to be substituted with imports from low-wage countries and their jobs are the most likely to be moved abroad, so that they can be classified as “globalization losers.” Individuals working in sheltered industries or occupations constitute an intermediate category. I use individual-level data to test the implications of these differentiated effects of globalization.
Eine angemessene Vertretung der Sprachgemeinschaften in der schweizerischen Bundesverwaltung gilt im politischen Diskurs als wichtiger Ausdruck der schweizerischen Mehrsprachigkeit. Verschiedene Gesetzesgrundlagen und Weisungen sind erlassen worden, um dieses Ziel zu erreichen. Es stellen sich jedoch Fragen bezüglich der Umsetzung und Wirkung dieser Massnahmen im Spannungsfeld zwischen beruflichen Qualifikationen und Sprachkenntnissen von StellenbewerberInnen sowie hinsichtlich der sprachregionalen Dynamiken des Arbeitsmarktes für Verwaltungsmitarbeitende. Statistiken zum Anteil der Bundesangestellten nach Erstsprachen verweisen auf ein Ungleichgewicht der Vertretung von Sprachminderheiten in gewissen Positionen und Ämtern. Ziel dieses Projektes ist es, sich eingehend mit diesem Phänomen auseinanderzusetzen und die Komplexität der Mechanismen und Prozesse zu verstehen, die den Zugang der sprachlichen Minderheiten zu gewissen Positionen in der Bundesverwaltung erleichtern oder erschweren. Der Schwerpunkt liegt auf dem Personalrekrutierungsprozess, der als Schlüsselinstrument der Selektion und des Zugangs zur Anstellung verstanden wird. Das Projekt wird in Zusammenarbeit mit dem wissenschaftlichen Kompetenzzentrum für Mehrsprachigkeit der Universität Fribourg durchgeführt.
Multilateral development banks are facing a rapidly evolving world economic context that calls into question the assumptions upon which their financial model is built. As more and more middle-income developing countries reduce reliance on multilateral lending, MDBs may find themselves with not enough non-concessional lending to sustain themselves financially. The recent financial crisis relieved the pressure by rapidly increasing financial needs in the developing world, but long-term trends suggest that the respite is only temporary. The MDB model as originally conceived after World War II may be outliving its usefulness, and MDBs themselves may be scrambling to survive by undertaking activities more oriented toward institutional self-preservation rather than their stated goal of promoting development. It is thus essential to improve our knowledge about how different MDBs are impacted by and reacting to these changes. This research project is designed to contribute to that end. In broad terms, the research is intended to investigate two sets of issues: (i) how changing economic circumstances among developing countries are affecting MDB lending and financial stability; and (ii) how and why these impacts may vary among different MDBs. We compare three different “types” of MDBs, the operations of which overlap in several countries in Latin America: the World Bank (controlled by wealthy non-borrowing countries), the Inter-American Development Bank (more evenly split between borrowers and non-borrowers), and the Andean Development Corporation (entirely controlled by the same countries that borrow from it). These different shareholding arrangements, we believe, are one of the main causal factors explaining the behavior of different MDBs. The research will focus on three main questions: - How does lending by MDBs change over time in reaction to different economic conditions among borrowers, and what factors may lead countries to prefer borrowing money from one or another MDB, when they have a choice? - What implications does evolving loan demand have for the financial sustainability of different MDBs? - How are MDBs reacting to evolving loan demand by borrowing countries, and how might this impact their development effectiveness? To answer these questions, the project uses a combination of statistical techniques with data collected from publicly-available sources, as well as qualitative analysis utilizing documents and interviews. We focus on Latin America because it offers a strong contrast over time from very difficult circumstances in the 1980s to a much stronger economic and fiscal situation in recent years. Also, most countries in Latin America are non-concessional MDB borrowers, which more directly impacts MDB finances than concessional borrowing. Lastly, one member of the research team has considerable academic and professional experience in the region. In the aspects of the research that require information from borrowing countries, we will look more closely at the case of Peru, in which all three of the MDBs have operated for a number of years. Peru is useful not only because it allows for direct comparisons among these three MDBs, but it also offers a particularly strong variation over time, from the economic collapse of the late 1980s to the highest growth rates in Latin America over the past several years.
Dieses Gutachten erörtert mögliche Konsequenzen einer Annahme der Volksinitiative „Für die Stärkung der Volksrechte in der Aussenpolitik (Staatsverträge vors Volk!)“, welche im Jahre 2009 eingereicht wurde. Konkret werden folgende vier Fragen beantwortet: Das Gutachten soll folgende vier Fragen beantworten: 1. Welches sind die heute bestehenden Mitsprachemöglichkeiten von Volk und Ständen beim Abschluss von Staatsverträgen? Wie wurden die bestehenden direktdemokratischen Instrumente bisher genutzt und mit welchem Ergebnis? 2. In welchem Verhältnis stehen die in der Initiative vorgesehenen neuen Mitsprachemöglichkeiten zu den bereits bestehenden? Mit wie vielen zusätzlichen Abstimmungen ist zu rechnen? 3. Wie wirkt sich die Durchführung von zusätzlichen Abstimmungen auf die Stimmbürgerinnen und Stimmbürger aus? Führt eine Erhöhung der Anzahl Abstimmungen zu Abstimmungsmüdigkeit und somit zu einer sinkenden Stimmbeteiligung? Führen zusätzliche Abstimmungen zu einer Überforderung der Stimmbürgerinnen und Stimmbürger bei der Meinungsbildung und somit zu einer verminderten Qualität des Stimmentscheids? 4. Welcher Mehraufwand entsteht durch die Erhöhung der Anzahl Abstimmungen? Welche zusätzlichen administrativen Kosten entstehen für die Behörden? Wie wirken sich Mehrabstimmungen auf die Bereitschaft von Medien und politischen Parteien aus, sich in der öffentlichen Debatte zu engagieren? Die Resultate des Gutachtens sind publiziert worden (siehe Weblinks unten).
This research project aims to assess the impact of various policy options in the primary education sector in the sub-Saharan country of Senegal. As Senegal faces similar problems as many other developing countries in the region and beyond, the results promise to be relevant on a broader scale. Typical features of sub-Saharan primary schools, especially in francophone Africa, are high repetition and drop-out rates, under-provision of material inputs like textbooks, badly educated teachers, widespread teacher absenteeism and very low performance of students in international student achievement tests. Nevertheless, numerous studies have consistently estimated high returns to primary education in developing countries. To improve quality and quantity of primary education in these countries, it is important to understand which factors influence the features mentioned and which policies in this area are most cost-effective. We will, therefore, focus on the following research questions: - What are the determinants of drop-out, in particular what role plays school quality for the decision to drop out? Which effects does drop-out have on human capital in the medium run? - What is the impact of the wide spread and expensive practice of grade repetition on later achievement and drop-out? What are the determinants of repetition? - Which material inputs, like textbooks, have a positive impact on student achievement and in which grades are they most effective? - What role does teacher education play for student achievement and is it a good idea to let better educated teachers only teach in higher grades or would it be more efficient to let them teach in lower grades as well? Analyses of the effectiveness of various inputs in the education system, especially in developing countries, often face the difficulty of not having any information on initial ability differences between students. Therefore, they cannot properly address the issue of selection bias which arises if initial ability (which affects achievement) is correlated with the other inputs. Time series cross section data can help to solve this problem as it allows controlling for earlier achievement as a proxy for schooling inputs earlier in time and ability differences. We have a panel data set for primary students from Senegal in which students were interviewed and tested from 1995 to 2000. In addition, teachers and directors were interviewed. The student data can be matched with additional information from complementary household surveys carried out by researchers from Cornell University (USA) and INRA (France). This makes our data set unique and allows us to address issues that could not be addressed in this way before. Especially the effects of drop-out and repetition in developing countries have not been studied much as longitudinal data is extremely scarce, especially for Africa. We will use quasi-experimental methods to match students who did and did not repeat/drop out on the basis of achievement before repetition/drop-out and further characteristics and then estimate treatment effects. Regarding inputs to primary education, like textbooks and teacher education, we will focus on the variation of effects over time, i.e., over grades, which allows us to give more precise policy advice on the optimal use of these inputs.