Search

1) Introduction Social cohesion is an important tenet of peaceful and prosperous societies. Cohesiveness is linked to higher institutional quality, economic growth, and peaceful cooperation (Colletta & Cullen, 2000; Easterly, Ritzen, & Woolcock, 2006; Ferroni, Mateo, & Payne, 2008). Moreover, a strong bond between members of society is connected to better quality of life and health out-comes (Kim & Kawachi, 2017; Lippman et al., 2018; Papachristou, Flouri, Kokosi, & Francesconi, 2019; Pattussi, Anselmo Olinto, Rower, Souza de Bairros, & Kawachi, 2016). Social cohesion is therefore recognized as a central element of economic development and socie-tal welfare by regional and national governments as well as by supranational political institu-tions (Chan, To, & Chan, 2006). Although it has become common sense that social cohesion is important, its social, political, and economic drivers are not well understood. In particular, there is a limited understanding of the predictors of social cohesion in the African context. To address this evidence gap, this scoping review will summarize the quantitative evidence on factors that foster or impede social cohesion in African societies. 1.1) Defining social cohesion This review follows a definition of social cohesion that encompasses both vertical relations be-tween members of society and horizontal relations between citizens and the state, which contribute to unity and togetherness of a society (Chan et al., 2006; Leininger et al., forthcoming). In particular, we define social cohesion in terms of three attributes: cooperation for the common good, trust, and an inclusive identity (Leininger et al., forthcoming). The attribute of inclusive identity refers to a positive identification and shared sense of belonging that bridges different groups and identities of a society (Leininger et al., forthcoming). This in-cludes identification with wider social groups (social identity) and/or the nation state (state/national identity) (Chan et al., 2006; Leininger et al., forthcoming). Identifying exclusive-ly with one’s social in-group, e.g. based on religion or ethnicity, can weaken overall social uni-ty, when it leads to hostile attitudes and behaviors towards other groups of society (Langer, Stewart, Smedts, & Demarest, 2017). Thus, we follow a definition of inclusive identity where wider social identification, e.g. based on nationality, is compatible with, but superordinate to, in-group identification, e.g. based on ethnicity (Langer et al., 2017). The attribute of trust covers social trust, that is, the “ability to trust people outside one's familiar or kinship circles” (Mattes & Moreno, 2018, p. 1) and institutional trust, which describes trust in public institutions, such as governments, courts, and the police (Mattes & Moreno, 2018; Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005). Finally, cooperation for the common good refers to the vertical and horizontal collective efforts to promote the welfare of society (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017). It takes both the form of in-dividual and intergroup cooperation that is directed at the welfare of society at large, and coop-eration between citizens and the state, e.g. in the form of civic engagement and political partici-pation (Chan et al., 2006). Such cooperation is not focused on mutual benefit of the groups or individuals involved, but implies the “willingness to subordinate personal needs under the wel-fare of the social environment” (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017, p. 589). In that sense, our defi-nition moves beyond the concept of social capital, which is focused largely on the pursuit of common interests (Chan et al., 2006). Although the precise constituents of social cohesion are a matter of debate, the three attributes described above encompass the core elements used in the literature (Chan et al., 2006; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017). Broader conceptualizations of social cohesion include further attributes, such as equality (Langer et al., 2017), quality of life (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017), or shared values (Nowack & Schoderer, 2020). We deliberately use a thin concept of social cohesion, as it allows us to analyze these variables as potential explanatory factors, rather than constituting elements of social cohesion (Chan et al., 2006; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017). 1.2) Research question and objectives While several literature reviews have focused on the conceptualization or measurement of social cohesion (Chan et al., 2006; Fonseca, Lukosch, & Brazier, 2019; Leininger et al., forthcoming; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017), to date, no attempt has been undertaken to provide a systematic overview of the evidence on determinants of social cohesion. Thus, the aim of this review is to identify and collate the available quantitative evidence on micro-, meso- and macro-level factors that foster or impede social cohesion in Africa. In particular, our review addresses two main questions: (1) Which economic, social, and political factors contribute to social cohesion and its three attributes in African societies? (2) What are the characteristics of, and gaps in, the current literature on determinants of so-cial cohesion in African countries? 2) Methods To address the research questions presented above, we will conduct a scoping review of the literature. Scoping reviews use transparent, systematic, and reproducible methods to search and map the literature on a pre-specified research question (Peters et al., 2020). Our review lends itself to a scoping review methodology as it aims to provide a broad overview of current evi-dence drawing from a variety of study designs, settings, outcomes, and participant groups (Khalil et al., 2016; Peters et al., 2020). Thus, due to the broad scope and heterogeneous body of evidence, a standardized synthesis of evidence, e.g. in the form of meta-analysis, would not be suitable (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). The conduct of this review will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) and the reporting of the review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). 2.1) Pre-registration A protocol of the review will be registered with the Open Science Framework and any changes made during the review process will be reported in the final version of the review (Shea et al., 2017). 2.2) Inclusion and exclusion criteria 2.2.1) Types of explanatory factors We define explanatory factors as any variable that fosters or impedes social cohesion and is operating at the micro- or meso-level, e.g. in neighborhoods and cities, or at the macro-level, such as state-wide policies (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). More precisely, we follow Murray et al. (2009) in distinguishing between correlates, predictors, and causes of social cohesion. Corre-lates are associated with, but need not be causally connected to, social cohesion (Murray, Farrington, & Eisner, 2009). Correlates can be established through observational research de-signs, e.g. regression analysis. For a factor to be a predictor, it must correlate with, and tempo-rally precede, social cohesion (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). This can be demonstrated, for instance, through interrupted time series designs, which compare outcomes before and after the introduction of an explanatory variable (Hudson, Fielding, & Ramsay, 2019). Finally, caus-es are factors that causally determine levels of social cohesion. Causes are established, for in-stance, through randomized controlled experiments and quasi-experimental designs with high internal validity (Murray et al., 2009). 2.2.2) Types of studies We will include all study designs that offer a quantitative analysis of correlates, predictors, or causes of social cohesion, such as controlled experiments, quasi-experimental studies, e.g. re-gression discontinuity or interrupted time series design, and other observational studies, e.g. multivariate regression analyses. Qualitative studies, commentaries, letters, and editorials will not be included. Systematic or literature reviews will be excluded but may be used to identify additional relevant studies. 2.2.3) Outcomes We will include studies that focus on social cohesion and its three attributes of trust, inclusive identity, and cooperation for the common good (Leininger et al., forthcoming). Social cohesion so defined includes the following indicators, among others: (1) Trust: measures such as self-reported generalized, outgroup/intergroup or politi-cal/institutional trust (Chan et al., 2006; Lundmark, Gilljam, & Dahlberg, 2016); ob-served behavior in trust games (Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995) or social dilemma experiments (Fehr, Fischbacher, Rosenbladt, Schupp, & Wagner, 2003) (2) Inclusive identity: measures such as self-reported identification with the nation state rela-tive to identification with the in-group (Langer et al., 2017; Leininger et al., forthcoming) (3) Cooperation for the common good: measures such as membership in associations and voluntary organizations, civic and political participation (Chan et al., 2006), contribu-tions to community public goods (e.g. Blattman, Fiala, & Martinez, 2014) or behavior in public goods experiments (e.g. Fearon, Humphreys, & Weinstein, 2009). As discussed in section 1.1, definitions of social cohesion are far from uniform and some con-ceptualizations include additional elements, such as equal opportunities, shared values, and qual-ity of life (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017). For the purpose of this review, these factors will not be viewed as defining elements, but rather as potential explanatory factors of social cohesion. 2.2.4) Context and participants This review focuses on social cohesion in African societies. Participants are therefore individu-als and/or groups in African countries. No restrictions will be applied regarding participants’ demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, or ethnicity. Studies situated in a geographical area other than Africa will be excluded, e.g. studies focusing on African immigrants in high-income countries. 2.2.5) Publication date and language Since this review is the first attempt to systematically search and synthesize evidence on explan-atory factors of social cohesion, we will not restrict eligibility based on publication dates of studies. Studies in English, German, and French will be screened for eligibility. 2.3) Search methods for identification of studies As research on social cohesion spans multiple disciplines (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017), we will search electronic databases with a focus on Social and Political Sciences and Economics (Web of Science), Psychology (PsycInfo), and Public Health (Embase). We will further search the AfricaBib databases, which cover studies with a regional focus on African countries from a variety of disciplines (EPOC, 2013). In order to avoid publication bias, which can systematical-ly distort review findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008), we will also hand-search the following websites to retrieve unpublished studies (EPOC, 2013): • Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) database • Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) database • 3ie evidence portal • Campbell Collaboration evidence repository • World Bank Open Knowledge Repository Table 1 displays the search syntax for Web of Science, which will be adjusted to each database. The search terms were developed based on relevant literature and reviews on social cohesion (Fonseca et al., 2019; Leininger et al., forthcoming; Mattes & Moreno, 2018; Nowack & Schoderer, 2020; Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017), and an adapted geographic search filter developed by Pienaar et al. (2011). Due to the wide range of study de-signs included in this review, we did not apply a study methodology filter. Table 1. Search Syntax (Web of Science) #1 Social cohesion overarching: TS=(“social cohesion” OR “socially cohesive” OR “social cohesiveness” OR “social capital” OR “social connectedness” OR “social inclusion”) Sources: (Fonseca et al., 2019; Leininger et al., forthcoming; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017) #2 Trust TS=(“social trust” OR “interpersonal trust” OR “mutual tolerance” OR “particulari$ed trust” OR “generali$ed trust” OR “outgroup trust” OR “out-group trust“ OR “ingroup trust” OR “in-group trust” OR “institu-tional trust” OR “political trust” OR “trust NEAR/5 institutions” OR “trust NEAR/5 state”) Sources: (Chan et al., 2006; Mattes & Moreno, 2018; Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017) #3 Inclusive identity TS=(“inclusive identit*” OR “shared identit*” OR “national identit*” OR “state identit*” OR “social identit*” OR “feeling of belonging” OR “sense of belonging”) Sources: (Leininger et al., forthcoming; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017) #4 Cooperation for the com-mon good TS=((cooperation NEAR/5 “the common good”) OR (responsibility NEAR/5 “the common good”) OR (orientation NEAR/5 “the common good”) OR “solidarity” OR “community cooperation“ OR “civic engage-ment” OR “voluntary engagement” OR “civic participation” OR “public good$" OR “willingness to cooperate” OR “collective action”) Sources: (Chan et al., 2006; Fonseca et al., 2019; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017) #5 #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 #6 African countries TS=(Africa OR African OR Algeria OR Angola OR Benin OR Botswana OR “Burkina Faso” OR Burundi OR Cameroon OR “Canary Islands” OR “Cape Verde” OR “Central African Republic” OR Chad OR Comoros OR Congo OR “Democratic Republic of Congo” OR Djibouti OR Egypt OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR Eritrea OR Ethiopia OR Gabon OR Gambia OR Ghana OR Guinea OR “Guinea Bissau” OR “Ivory Coast” OR “Cote d’Ivoire” OR Jamahiriya OR Jamahiryia OR Kenya OR Lesotho OR Libe-ria OR Libya OR Libia OR Madagascar OR Malawi OR Mali OR Mauri-tania OR Mauritius OR Mayote OR Morocco OR Mozambique OR Mocambique OR Namibia OR Niger OR Nigeria OR Principe OR Reun-ion OR Rwanda OR “Sao Tome” OR Senegal OR Seychelles OR “Sierra Leone” OR Somalia OR “South Africa” OR “St Helena” OR Sudan OR Swaziland OR Tanzania OR Togo OR Tunisia OR Uganda OR “Western Sahara” OR Zaire OR Zambia OR Zimbabwe OR “Central Africa” OR “Central African” OR “West Africa” OR “West African” OR “Western Africa” OR “Western African” OR “East Africa” OR “East African” OR “Eastern Africa” OR “Eastern African” OR “North Africa” OR “North African” OR “Northern Africa” OR “Northern African” OR “South Afri-can” OR “Southern Africa” OR “Southern African” OR “sub Saharan Af-rica” OR “sub Saharan African” OR “sub-Saharan Africa” OR “sub-Saharan African” OR “MENA” OR “Middle East and North Africa”) NOT (“guinea pig” OR “guinea pigs” OR “aspergillus niger” OR “African-American$”)) Source: (Pienaar, Grobler, Busgeeth, Eisinga, & Siegfried, 2011) #7 #5 AND #6 Notes: all searches include the Web of Science core collection without limitations on year of publication; TS refers to ‘Topic’, which allows searching title, abstract, and keywords; $ searches for zero or one additional characters, * searches for any group of characters, includ-ing no character; all searches include the Web of Science core collection without limitations on year of publication; NEAR/x searches for terms that are within x words of each other 2.4) Study selection and data charting Titles and abstracts of retrieved studies will be screened against the eligibility criteria (Table 2) using the online tool Rayyan (Ouzzani, Hammady, Fedorowicz, & Elmagarmid, 2016). To re-duce bias in study selection, a randomly selected 10% of titles/abstracts will be screened by a second reviewer (Stoll et al., 2019). A full-text screening of the remaining articles will be con-ducted by CW and a randomly selected 10% will be screened by a second reviewer. We will provide an overview of the screening and selection process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)-approach (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009). Data charting will be performed by CW. The following study characteristics will be extracted from included studies: • Study type, e.g. experimental, quasi-experimental, observational • Outcome measures used • Country and setting (e.g. rural, urban) • Participant characteristics (age, gender) • Sample size Moreover, we will include information about mediator / moderator analyses, if conducted, as it can provide valuable information about potential mechanisms underlying the relationship be-tween cohesion and its predictor (MacKinnon, 2011). 2.5) Data analysis and presentation Themes emerging from included studies will be presented graphically and the presentation of results will be accompanied by narrative synthesis (Peters et al., 2020). Moreover, we will pro-vide an overview of the characteristics of included studies in tabular form (Tricco et al., 2018). 3) Funding sources This research is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Devel-opment. The funder did not influence the protocol or review design. 4) References Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027 Blattman, C., Fiala, N., & Martinez, S. (2014). Generating skilled self-employment in developing countries: Experimental evidence from Uganda. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 697–752. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt057 Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). When Does it Make Sense to Perform a Meta-Analysis? Introduction to Meta-Analysis, 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386.ch40 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Chan, J., To, H. P., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1 Colletta, N. J., & Cullen, M. L. (2000). Violent conflict and the transformation of social capital: lessons from Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, and Somalia. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Easterly, W., Ritzen, J., & Woolcock, M. (2006). Social cohesion, institutions, and growth. Economics and Politics, 18(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2006.00165.x EPOC. (2013). A collection of Databases, Websites and Journals relevant to Low- and Middle-Income Countries, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Retrieved from https://epoc.cochrane.org/lmic-databases Fearon, J. D., Humphreys, M., & Weinstein, J. M. (2009). Can development aid contribute to social cohesion after civil war? Evidence from a field experiment in post-conflict Liberia. American Economic Review, (99). https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.287 Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., Rosenbladt, B. Von, Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2003). A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining Trust and Trustworthiness by Integrating Behavioral Experiments into Representative Survey. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.385120 Ferroni, M., Mateo, M., & Payne, M. (2008). Development under conditions of inequality and distrust – social cohesion in Latin America. Washington, DC. Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S., & Brazier, F. (2019). Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it. Innovation, 32(2), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480 Hudson, J., Fielding, S., & Ramsay, C. R. (2019). Methodology and reporting characteristics of studies using interrupted time series design in healthcare. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(137). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0777-x Khalil, H., Peters, M., Godfrey, C. M., Mcinerney, P., Soares, C. B., & Parker, D. (2016). An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(2), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12144 Kim, E. S., & Kawachi, I. (2017). Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Preventive Healthcare Use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 53(2), e35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.007 Langer, A., Stewart, F., Smedts, K., & Demarest, L. (2017). Conceptualising and Measuring Social Cohesion in Africa: Towards a Perceptions-Based Index. Social Indicators Research, 131(1), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1250-4 Leininger, J., Sommer, C., Burchi, F., Fiedler, C., Mross, K., Nowack, D., … Strupat, C. (n.d.). Social Cohesion: Measurement and African Country Profiles. Bonn, Germany. Lippman, S. A., Leslie, H. H., Neilands, T. B., Twine, R., Grignon, J. S., MacPhail, C., … Kahn, K. (2018). Context matters: Community social cohesion and health behaviors in two South African areas. Health and Place, 50, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.12.009 Lundmark, S., Gilljam, M., & Dahlberg, S. (2016). Measuring Generalized Trust. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv042 MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). Integrating mediators and moderators in research design. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(6), 675–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511414148 Mattes, R., & Moreno, A. (2018). Social and political trust in developing countries: Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Eisner, M. P. (2009). Drawing conclusions about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: The Cambridge Quality Checklists. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-008-9066-0 Nowack, D., & Schoderer, S. (2020). The Role of Values for Social Cohesion: Theoretical Explication and Empirical Exploration (No. 6). https://doi.org/10.23661/dp6.2020 Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(210). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 Papachristou, E., Flouri, E., Kokosi, T., & Francesconi, M. (2019). Main and interactive effects of inflammation and perceived neighbourhood cohesion on psychological distress: results from a population-based study in the UK. Quality of Life Research, 28(8), 2147–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02143-7 Pattussi, M., Anselmo Olinto, M., Rower, H., Souza de Bairros, F., & Kawachi, I. (2016). Individual and neighbourhood social capital and all-cause mortality in Brazilian adults: a prospective multilevel study. Public Health, 134, 3–11. Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pienaar, E., Grobler, L., Busgeeth, K., Eisinga, A., & Siegfried, N. (2011). Developing a geographic search filter to identify randomised controlled trials in Africa: Finding the optimal balance between sensitivity and precision. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 28(3), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00936.x Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72. Schiefer, D., & van der Noll, J. (2017). The Essentials of Social Cohesion: A Literature Review. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1314-5 Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., … Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. British Medical Journal, 358(j4008). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 Stoll, C. R. T., Izadi, S., Fowler, S., Green, P., Suls, J., & Colditz, G. A. (2019). The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(4), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1369 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

This chapter provides an overview of the multi-faceted landscape of methods used to study the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals. After a discussion of the political use of science and the complex relations between science and politics, the chapter showcases a selection of different methods that are employed to trace the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals. Selecting the most suitable method for a particular research question requires understanding their main characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. The chapter highlights that all methods and tools need to be combined to comprehensively assess the political impact of the goals, the progress towards their achievement, and their overall transformative potential. As data gaps and unequal geographical coverage still hamper a broader understanding of the political impact of the globalgoals, we need to build bridges across language communities, disciplines and methodological camps, which still work very much in isolation.

The 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development of 2015 prominently stresses that 'the SDGs are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental' (UN [United Nations], 2015, p. 3). Behind this statement lies a reality of complex interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets, the implementation of which may produce synergies but also trade-offs. Another innovative trait of the 2030 Agenda is its strong commitment to the 'quality of governance'. While the debate about the necessary elements of governance continues, most definitions today include inclusive and participatory decision-making, accountability, and transparency as its key institutional characteristics. These characteristics have been enshrined as targets under SDG 16 on 'Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions' that are not only considered desirable outcomes but also as enablers of all other SDGs. Yet another central, transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda is to Leave No One Behind (LNOB), which requires the participation of all segments of society to contribute to its implementation. There is broad consensus in contemporary academic and policy debates that innovative governance approaches will be essential to achieve an integrated implementation of the interlinked SDGs and to fulfil the LNOB commitment. A more recent debate, which has gained traction since the 26th UN Climate Change Conference in 2021, focuses on the just transition towards climate-just, equitable and inclusive societies. At the centre of this debate lies the understanding that governments will be unable to gain public support for the prioritisation of climate actions if they do not succeed in drastically reducing poverty and inequality. It will be necessary that just climate transition be based on the principles of procedural, distributional and recognitional justice. So far, these two debates have run in parallel without cross-fertilising each other. This Policy Brief makes the case that the debate on just transition has much to gain from the academic findings generated by research on the role of governance in managing SDG interlinkages. It is based on a recent study by IDOS and the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (UNDP OGC) that collates empirical evidence on the effects of governance qualities (SDG 16) on the reduction of poverty (SDG 1) and inequalities (SDG 10) (DIE* & UNDP OGC, 2022). The study finds that: * Improved levels of participation and inclusion are positively associated with poverty reduction; * Higher levels of access to information, transparency and accountability help to improve access to basic services and targeting of social protection policies. These findings provide policymakers with an empirical basis to argue that investments in the achievement of the governance targets of SDG 16 can act as catalysts for interventions seeking to reduce poverty and inequalities. Against this backdrop, this Policy Brief argues that the governance targets of SDG 16 are not only institutional preconditions for the reduction of poverty and inequalities but also contribute towards just transitions. More specifically: they are institutions that contribute towards the justice principles that constitute the basis of just transition and exhibit the governance qualities postulated by SDG 16. It is important to note that debates on the quality of governance and just transition do not take place in a political vacuum. In view of global trends towards auto-cratisation (V-Dem 2022), the empirical findings regarding the enabling governance effects on poverty and inequality reduction carry the important policy implication that action to support just transition will in all likelihood be more successful if accompanied by proactive measures to protect and support democratic institutions and processes.

This empirical analysis investigates whether and to what extent social cohesion and the coverage of social protection schemes influence governments' decisions about the stringency of COVID-19 containment policies during the first and second waves in 2020 in Africa. Our results indicate that societal and social factors influenced the stringency of containment policies. Social cohesion has a negative effect on the stringency of containment policies in response to COVID-19 over time. Social protection coverage has a positive effect on the stringency of containment policies in response to COVID-19 over time. States implemented more stringent containment policies in less cohesive societies if they already had social protection schemes in place before the pandemic. Contextual factors mediated these effects. While stringency of containment policies softened over time where levels of democracy, poverty, and inequality were higher, social protection made a mediating difference only in autocratic states and societies with higher poverty. Three contributions of the empirical analysis stand out. First, the conceptual integration of societal and social factors ("societal triangle") provides a novel basis from which to analyse policy responses during external shocks like a global pandemic. Second, to overcome the limitations of current measurements of social cohesion, we use a novel measurement to determine pre-pandemic levels of social cohesion. Third, this is the first cross-national study that addresses a world region, Africa, which has gained little attention in the study of policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion Paper

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda will require strong, accountable institutions. Since no global compliance mechanisms are in place, member states need to establish or use their own institutions and mechanisms to be held accountable for SDG implementation. In July 2021, governments, civil society and the private sector will gather at the annual UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) to take stock of progress on the 17 SDGs. The event provides an opportunity to assess progress made in the establishment of national-level accountability frameworks for the SDGs. Given their legal mandates, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) can play a key role in the implementation and follow-up of the SDGs. However, so far, this role has been scarcely acknowledged by governments in their Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.International practice shows that NHRIs play a more active role in providing information for SDG implementation than indicated in the VNRs. For instance, they collect and provide data and build capacities of national institutions. However, NHRIs are rarely represented in national bodies established to oversee SDG implementation. Yet, their ability to support the SDG process increases when they collaborate with the government, get information about SDG policy planning and receive the opportunity to demand explanations about “why” certain policies are adopted and “how” they shall contribute to successful SDG implementation. It is important to note, though, that preconditions for NHRI engagement vary considerably according to country contexts. To strengthen national horizontal accountability in general, and to ensure a human-rights-based approach in implementing the SDGs across all sectors of development, it will be important to: - Establish NHRIs that are compliant with the Paris Principles. The pace of progress for establishing NHRIs is too slow. Currently, only half of all countries will achieve SDG indicator 16.a.1 (Existence of independent NHRIs in compliance with the Paris Principles) by 2030. The UN and other international organisations should assist gov-ernments in establishing institutions to be in conformity with the Paris Principles and to enable their effective and independent operation. - Ensure an independent voice for NHRIs. Amidst current autocratisation trends worldwide, fundamental freedoms need to be protected. This allows non-state actors and independent state oversight agencies such as NHRIs to criticise government action and demand human rights in SDG implementation. This will also contribute to the direct implementation of SDG target 16.10 on the protection of fundamental freedoms. - Enable the participation of NHRIs in national SDG oversight bodies. As a first step, it is necessary that NHRIs themselves raise awareness of their relevant role for better accountability of governments’ SDG implementation among national stakeholders. National governments should include NHRIs in the national SDG infrastructure by ensuring their representation in national SDG oversight bodies or government advisory committees. - Improve VNR reporting. Governments should make sure to adequately reflect in VNR reporting the role played by NHRIs and assess what they can contribute to national SDG implementation and monitoring., Briefing Paper

Die Frage, ob und wie sich Demokratie durch internationale Unterstützung fördern und schützen lässt, hat jüngst an Relevanz gewonnen. Zum einen hat der Abzug der NATO-Truppen aus Afghanistan eine öffentliche Debatte über die Grenzen von Demokratieförderung neu entfacht. Zum anderen wächst der Bedarf an internationalem Demokratieschutz angesichts zunehmender Autokratisierungstrends weltweit. Forschungsergebnisse des DIE zeigen: Wirksame Unterstützung von Demokratie ist möglich. Dabei sind sowohl der Schutz von zentralen demokratischen Institutionen wie Amtszeitbeschränkungen von Machthabern als auch die Förderung von demokratischen Kräften, die sich Autokratisierungsversuchen proaktiv widersetzen, zentral. Seit 2010 zeichnen sich Autokratisierungstrends dadurch aus, dass sie bereits erreichte Demokratisierungserfolge oft schleichend erodieren und Autokratien festigen. Umgehungen und Aufhebungen präsidentieller Amtszeitbeschränkungen durch amtierende Präsidenten gehören zum typischen „Autokratisierungsbaukasten“. Amtszeitverlängerungen schränken demokratische Kontrolle ein und weiten die präsidentielle Macht aus. Demokratieförderung und -schutz spielen eine relevante Rolle für den Erhalt präsidentieller Amtszeitbeschränkungen und damit für den Schutz von Demokratie. Sie tragen dazu bei, „Überlebenschancen“ von Amtszeitbeschränkungen zu verbessern. Je mehr internationale Demokratieförderung bereitgestellt wird, desto geringer das Risiko, dass Amtszeitbeschränkungen umgangen werden. Eine DIE-Analyse ergab z. B., dass eine moderat hohe Demokratieförderung von durchschnittlich US$ 2,50 pro Kopf über vier Jahre hinweg das Risiko der Umgehung einer präsidentiellen Amtszeitbeschränkung im Schnitt halbiert. Basierend auf einer quantitativen Analyse und Fallstudien ergeben sich die folgenden Empfehlungen für internationale Demokratieförderer: • Demokratieförderung und -schutz komplementär einsetzen. Einerseits gilt es, Demokratie stetig zu fördern, da die Organisations- und Oppositionsfähigkeit politischer und zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure nur langfristig aufgebaut werden können. Anderseits müssen Demokratieschützer in politischen Krisen auch mit Ad-hoc-Maßnahmen und diplomatischen Mitteln kurzfristig reagieren. • Demokratieförderung ist eine Risikoinvestition, die sich lohnt. Ob es gelingt, Demokratie langfristig zu fördern und vor Autokratisierung zu schützen, hängt vor allem von heimischen Kräften und Institutionen ab. Auch für sie sind politische Krisen ergebnisoffen. Während Untätigkeit Autokraten eher in die Hände spielt, birgt kontextsensibles Engagement immerhin die Möglichkeit, einen Beitrag zum Erhalt von Demokratie zu leisten. • Demokratieschutz durch regionale Organisationen stärken. Regionalorganisationen wie die ECOWAS oder AU bieten regionalpolitische Strukturen, die helfen können, deeskalierend zu wirken und glaubwürdige Verpflichtungen vonseiten der Amtsinhaber zu gewährleisten. Internationale Geber könnten sich daher in demokratiekritischen Situationen mit Regionalorganisationen wirksam abstimmen., Analysen und Stellungnahmen

The question of whether and how democracy can be promoted and protected through international support has recently gained relevance. On the one hand, the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan has reignited a public debate on the limits of democracy promotion. On the other hand, the need for international democracy protection is growing due to an increase in autocratisation trends worldwide. DIE research shows that it is possible to effectively support and protect democracy. In this context, both the protection of central democratic institutions, such as term limits for rulers, and the promotion of democratic forces that pro-actively resist attempts at autocratisation are central. Since 2010, autocratisation trends have been characterised by the fact that they often slowly erode achieved democratisation successes and consolidate autocracies. The circumvention and abolition of presidential term limits by incumbent presidents are part of the typical “autocratisation toolbox”. Term extensions limit democratic control and expand presidential powers. Democracy promotion and protection play a relevant role in preserving presidential term limits, and thus in protecting democracy. They contribute towards improving the “duration” and “survival chances” of presidential term limits. The more international democracy promotion is provided, the lower the risk that term limits will be circumvented. For example, a DIE analysis found that a moderately high democracy promotion mean of $2.50 per capita over four years on average halves the risk of presidential term limits being circumvented. Based on quantitative analysis and case studies, the following recommendations for international democracy promoters emerge: • Use democracy promotion and protection in a complementary way. On the one hand, democracy must be promoted continuously, as the organisational and oppositional capacity of political and civil society actors can only be built up in the long term. On the other hand, democracy protectors must also react in the short term to political crises with ad hoc measures and diplomatic means. • Democracy promotion is a risky investment that pays off. Whether it is possible to promote democracy in the long term and protect it from autocratisation depends above all on domestic forces and institutions. For them, too, political crises are open-ended. While inaction tends to play into the hands of autocrats, context-sensitive engagement at least offers the possibility of contributing to the preservation of democracy. • Strengthen democracy protection through regional organisations. Regional organisations such as ECOWAS and the African Union offer regional political structures that can help with de-escalation and ensure credible commitments on the part of the incumbents. International donors could therefore coordinate with regional organisations in situations where democracy is at stake., Briefing Paper

3rd Report prepared by The World in 2050 initiative

The EU has made democracy support a stronger aspect in its relations with African countries since 2002. However, a broad range of political and economic dynamics within as well as outside of Europe challenge democracy and its supporters: the rise of non-democratic countries such as China, challenges to democracy within the EU, and global autocratization trends, which include African countries. While posing new challenges the EU needs to react to, these trends also reinforce the importance of continued support and protection of democracy abroad. In light of this changed context, the EU will need to fundamentally adjust its strategic approach and instruments towards democracy support in Africa. Against this background, this paper discusses reasons for the EU to continue and even strengthen its democracy support in Africa: societal demands in Africa and regional democracy norms; the relationship between democracy and sustainable development as well as the new geostrategic competition. The paper analyses how the EU’s support for democracy and human rights in sub-Saharan Africa has developed over the last decades in terms of its understanding of democracy support as well as its substance. The paper concludes by making ten proposals for reforming the EU’s democracy support in Africa. The reform proposals relate to a new narrative and more strategic approach to democracy support in light of the changed geopolitical setting, to addressing megatrends more explicitly through democracy support or to reforming the EU’s institutional prerequisites., Discussion Paper