“We mustn’t shy away from doing science that’s political”
The “super election year” of 2024 swept autocrats into power and strengthened nationalist parties. The election of US President Donald Trump, in particular, is causing the pillars of the previous world order to collapse. What does this mean for the goals of sustainable development, and for sustainability science itself? And how do we get back out of this situation? We spoke to CDE Board Member Anna-Katharina Hornidge, Director of the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), and CDE Director Sabin Bieri.
Anna-Katharina Hornidge and Sabin Bieri
Interview: Gaby Allheilig
Multilateralism, liberal legal systems, democratic processes – these seem to be history. Despite these concepts being primarily based on Western values and perspectives, many high-income countries are now withdrawing from their global responsibilities. What does this mean for sustainable development?
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: In many respects, what we’re witnessing is an escalating conflict with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its goals. The 2023 Global Sustainable Development Report had already pointed to the likelihood of turmoil associated with transformation processes towards sustainability. That’s because it’s about actual structural change. Shaping transformations towards climate stabilization – and doing so in a socially just way – ultimately also means global redistribution. It was to be expected that this wouldn’t be possible without resistance.
But what’s happening now is more than just tensions. It’s also a cultural struggle in which large parts of the electorate are backing nationalist tendencies and opposing the Sustainable Development Goals, even though some of these voters aren’t actually among the losers of the transformation processes. This is one of the biggest challenges facing the sustainability and development community: to think about how we can reach the masses.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Social inequalities are a driver of the increased turn to right-wing nationalist positions.”
Sabin Bieri
________________________________________________________________________________________
Sabin Bieri: One might be tempted to conclude that sustainability transformation movements seem to have reached a certain momentum. That the threat this poses to the opposing forces has become so great that they’re fighting back. Indeed, it’s astonishing that the sustainability debate – and the gender debate as part of it – appear to have been so influential that entire governments are now campaigning to remove certain words from documents.
But the current developments can also be seen as the last gasp of a system that dates back to the previous century and whose increasing signs of decay we have discussed, notably also in the sustainability sciences.
Such as?
Sabin Bieri: Such as social inequality. This is certainly one of the drivers behind the increased tendency of parts of the population to gravitate towards right-wing nationalist positions. Or the associated problem of status-related overconsumption.
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: We’ve repeatedly emphasized the need for reform at many levels, including that of multilateral structures. These have been in crisis for many years, not just now. I’m thinking, for example, of the reform processes of the last two years concerning international financial institutions: while some changes did occur, the question arises as to how sustainable this has been.
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: Two years ago, the World Bank was still striving to become “a bigger and better bank”. Better bank in this respect meant expanding the mandate of development banks from combating poverty to include action against climate change and species extinction. If the World Bank is now considering abolishing its climate unit, the question arises as to whether these were real structural reforms or perhaps just cosmetic ones.
The United Nations has also long been in need of reform. In particular, the blockade of the UN Security Council leads to it no longer reflecting the power configuration of a multipolar world order. This should have been recognized 30 or 40 years ago. So, it’s important that we ask ourselves: Do the current disruptive impacts have the potential for reform, or are they merely destructive?
________________________________________________________________________________
“We see forms of self-censorship – which is at least as dangerous as censorship itself.”
Anna-Katharina Hornidge
________________________________________________________________________________
What’s your response to this?
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: At the moment, we only see the destructive side – a side that’s clearly predominant in the short term. At the same time, we have to admit that the reform attempts of the last 20 years haven’t delivered what’s needed, and what many countries in the South have demanded.
But – and this brings me back to what Sabin said about the censorship of certain words: What’s happening right now is very dangerous. Even just having such lists – of what you’re allowed to say and what not – is shifting discourse spaces. Websites are being cleared of certain terms or, in the German-speaking context, the gender star, the symbol that signifies inclusion of all genders in words referring to people. These are forms of self-censorship – which is at least as dangerous as censorship itself.
The new US government has practically dismantled its development agency within a very short time. Many European countries, including Switzerland and Germany, are also making massive cuts to development cooperation. What do you say to people who believe – in line with the “America first” way of thinking – that Switzerland and Germany should now serve their own interests?
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: One argument you often hear at the moment is: “Everyone else is making cuts too – why shouldn’t we?” If I may be so blunt: I find this argument ridiculous. So, because the others are jumping off the bridge, we should all jump too? That shouldn’t be the motto of policymaking. Objectively, there are important reasons not to cut development budgets – starting with the fact that we depend on alliances and partnerships, especially from a European perspective. In a global context, Europe is a union of small countries.
________________________________________________________________________________
“Cooperative relationships don’t just fall from the sky, they have to be shaped.”
Anna-Katharina Hornidge
________________________________________________________________________________
You can look at it economically, politically, or militarily: We don’t know whether Europe will still be a pole in a multipolar world in the future. But we do know that our wealth, which is the foundation of our position in the world, depends on cooperative relationships and not on erecting barriers. This cooperation doesn’t just fall from the sky, it has to be shaped – with high-income countries as well as with middle- and low-income countries, on all continents. This is all the more important given that, demographically speaking, we are an old continent.
Sabin Bieri: We benefit from a cooperative world order – all of us do. Because we’re an old continent, we have to ask ourselves who will maintain our infrastructure, care for our elderly, and so on, in the future. Europe is heading towards a huge labour shortage. I realize that we’re quickly treading on thin ice when we try to imagine how this is supposed to work in practice: but we’re well advised to cultivate partnerships on an equal footing with countries where many young people are entering the labour market.
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: Yes, and when it comes to the stabilization of Europe’s neighbouring regions – sub-Saharan Africa, the Sahel region, or Eastern Europe – we likewise have an interest in cooperating with these countries. This should be pointed out to those who criticize development funding. At the same time, it’s also in our own interest how we deal with major global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental pollution. And, of course, there’s also the argument that we owe our wealth not only to our actions today, but also to our history – our colonial history. We have a responsibility here, which can be translated into a clear logic of solidarity.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“If we can’t help but find the scapegoat among the world’s poor, that reflects poorly on us.”
Anna-Katharina Hornidge
________________________________________________________________________________________
Sabin Bieri: Another argument is that the cuts in development funding cast development cooperation in an unfavourable light. In the vast majority of cases, good work has been done and closely monitored. Significant results have been achieved, such as the reduction of poverty, child mortality, and malaria. Such achievements are now directly jeopardized if we all follow suit on this withdrawal and abandon things we have worked towards for decades. If we simply walk away from our collective responsibility – namely that all people have a right to a dignified life – and think it’s not our concern, well, I find that pathetic.
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: I very much agree with that. The cuts in development budgets can also be seen as a scapegoat policy. Take, for example, the budget of the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, which includes the social security of the German population, such as pension payments, unemployment benefits, and social insurance. This budget is more than fifteen times higher than the development budget. And to address the very real social fears of people in Germany, we’re now saying: “Then let’s cut five billion from the development budget; after all, these are not our voters.” This policy basically follows the same pattern as seeking scapegoats in an ethnic or religious group. If, in our wealth, we can’t help but find the scapegoat among the world’s poor, that really reflects poorly on us.
__________________________________________________________________________
“It’s a key task of science to enable well-reflected policymaking.”
Anna-Katharina Hornidge
__________________________________________________________________________
In view of the recent developments that have thrown the world into “disorder”, the question of the role of science is becoming increasingly important. What can and what must science do to ensure that we get back on track with the goals of the 2030 Agenda and that people don’t lose hope of a future worth living?
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: Although the discussion about the 2030 Agenda in recent years has often led to the conclusion that we are not where we should and want to be, progress has been made – despite the pandemic and wars. We should emphasize this more strongly and build on it. I’m convinced that one of the key tasks of science is to inform and enable fact- and evidence-based, well-reflected policymaking. It has the duty to advise policy areas such as climate, sustainability, health, trade, and so on in a way that enables them to shape sustainable development in line with the 2030 Agenda. For example, ensuring that health policy also takes into account social justice, ecology, and the economy. Science is needed here more than ever – also to help prevent the international rules-based order from breaking down completely.
But by this I don’t mean an authoritarian approach such as “science says, and policy does”. Rather, it’s about organizing the interfaces between science, policy, and society in an objective and cooperative manner. This is where I see another very important task for science: that of training and empowering people – especially young people – to work in a knowledge- or fact-based way, so that they realize that they, too, can make a difference with their contribution and in their surroundings.
_____________________________________________________________________________
“Science needs to get its act together and highlight all the positive developments, too.”
Sabin Bieri
_____________________________________________________________________________
Sabin Bieri: I agree. Science has also been in the firing line of the current upheavals, and if you look at it schematically, there are two options: Either you go on the defensive and focus on the “core task”, as it were, of developing knowledge as far away as possible from any policy areas. Or you go on the offensive, as you have described. We can further strengthen the focus on data for public debates, which I still find very enlightening, because data often tell us something different from our gut feeling.
But I think science needs to get its act together and start highlighting all the positive developments that are, of course, happening, too. To show where we have reason to breathe a sigh of relief, and where new opportunities are opening up to shape the future. The challenge is to engage people. We have to ask ourselves: How do we get the messages across? How do we create links to people’s everyday experiences? How and to what extent do we simplify? There are numerous methodological contributions on this, for example from our transdisciplinary work. I see great potential here. Besides, science is also the field of innovation. This gives us concrete opportunities to change or improve situations – especially for social groups that are otherwise less well off.
Do you mean technological innovations?
Sabin Bieri: Not only. I’m not worried about technical and technological innovations, because policy frameworks will probably continue to foster these in the future. What I primarily mean is the social innovations that are needed to tackle the major challenges we face, and the strengthening of transformative forces. Science still has a lot of work to do in this regard.
___________________________________________________________________________________
“In sustainability science and development research, we have to prepare ourselves for a marathon.”
Anna-Katharina Hornidge
___________________________________________________________________________________
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: I think the point about constructive or critical-constructive science is very important. On the one hand, it’s relevant when dealing with the next generation of researchers, because in sustainability science and development research we have to prepare ourselves for a marathon, where positive moments will be needed. On the other hand, I share the opinion that we mustn’t shy away from doing science that’s political. By this, I don’t mean science that’s politicized in the sense of catering to party politics or geopolitics; what I mean is science that contributes to policymaking. I believe that distinguishing between the two is an important debate we need to have.
Where do you see opportunities and fields of activity for IDOS and CDE – and what gives you hope?
Sabin Bieri: I think we need to set our sights high. Twenty or thirty years ago, CDE was a pioneer in sustainability research. Then many others started to join in. That in itself is desirable, because it shows that the topics have been recognized and that what we are doing resonates. But for us it also signifies a challenge, namely that of redefining our role. Remaining a frontrunner, or regaining that position, is important to me. We – and in any case IDOS – should be the place that others look to for guidance, especially at a time strongly characterized by upheaval and destruction. The course we are charting and the goals we have set ourselves are formulated
in our new strategy. It’s about science that’s political, about genuine knowledge partnerships, and about science as an instrument for shaping the future. It’s up to us to substantiate these aspirations and to show, together with our teams, what this can mean.
___________________________________________________________________________________
“Our partnerships with the Global South enable us to develop sustainable solutions for the future.”
Sabin Bieri
___________________________________________________________________________________
As to what gives me a boost: We’ve achieved a lot so far, we’ve built good teams and trained many young people. That’s powerful. And the fact that the focus of CDE and IDOS has always been on our partnerships with the Global South is now becoming a critical advantage. These partnerships make it possible, for example, to mobilize Indigenous knowledge to develop sustainable solutions for the future. We need to strengthen such collaborations in order to overcome the challenges we face.
Anna-Katharina Hornidge: In Germany, discussions are currently underway about the country’s role in the face of current disruptive developments, particularly with regard to its lack of military capacity. A point I am trying to bring into the debate is that it takes time for a civil and economic power like Germany to emancipate itself militarily after 80 years. This implies a focus on civil conflict prevention and all forms of cooperative means of shaping partnerships and engaging in dialogue with the world. I think for Germany as a liberal democracy in the centre of Europe it’s incredibly important to stand up for democratic values and rules, and to also convey this to the world.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“We’re in favour of a cooperative multipolar world that holds the potential for greater equality and justice.”
Anna-Katharina Hornidge
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I believe this should also apply to IDOS and CDE. During these times, we need institutions like ours that are anchored both within science as well as at the interfaces of science, policy, and society – and that have transregional partnership networks with different stakeholders. We are committed to a cooperative multipolar world that holds the potential for greater equality and justice. And we actively help to conceive and shape sustainable futures. That’s what our institutional strategy at IDOS is geared towards.
And what keeps you going?
It’s important to keep reminding ourselves of how beautiful life is, and that a world without Lebensfreude, the joy of living, would not be worth living in. After all, we’re not just working towards a future within planetary boundaries, where human life is still possible from a purely scientific point of view. We strive for a world in which the joys of social interaction and cultural experiences shape everyday life.
