EU trade agreements and their impacts on human rights: study commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

The European Union’s (EU) trade policy has a strong influence on economic development and the human rights situation in the EU’s partner countries, particularly in developing countries. The present study was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) as a contribution to further developing appropriate methodologies for assessing human rights risks in development-related policies, an objective set in the BMZ’s 2011 strategy on human rights. The study offers guidance for stakeholders seeking to improve their knowledge of how to assess, both ex ante and ex post, the impact of Economic Partnership Agreements on poverty reduction and the right to food in ACP countries. Currently, human rights impacts are not yet systematically addressed in the trade sustainability impact assessments (trade SIAs) that the European Commission conducts when negotiating trade agreements. Nor do they focus specifically on disadvantaged groups or include other benchmarks relevant to human rights impact assessments (HRIAs). The EU itself has identified a need for action in this regard. In June 2012 it presented an Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy that calls for the inclusion of human rights in all impact assessments and in this context explicitly refers to trade agreements. Since then, the EU has begun to slightly adapt its SIA methodology and is working to define more adequate human rights–consistent procedures. It is hoped that readers of this study will find inspiration to help contribute to this process and help improve human rights consistency of future trade options.

Increasingly Rank: The Use and Misuse of Rankings in Economic Development

Debates over the merits of competing schemes for ranking metropolitan areas as hightech centers shed little light on the important policy questions that should be the core of economic development policy. There are no strong theoretical reasons for preferring one ranking system to others. Rankings often conflate different industries and ignore history, obscuring the varied and often idiosyncratic processes that drive growth in different regions. Although an occupational perspective is a useful one for examining economic activity, it is a supplement to, not a replacement for, a careful understanding of metropolitan industrial specialization. Practitioners should not put too much weight on any ranking system but instead should work to develop detailed knowledge of their region’s special economic niche and to develop relationships and strategies that build on established strengths.

What is the Role of Universities in High-tech Economic Development? The Case of Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC

This paper focuses on two regions in the United States that have emerged as high-technology regions in the absence of major research universities. The case of Portland's Silicon Forest is compared to Washington, DC. In both regions, high-technology economies grew because of industrial restructuring processes. The paper argues that in both regions other actors—such as firms and government laboratories—spurred the development of knowledge-based economies and catalysed the engagement of higher education institutions in economic development. The paper confirms and advances the triple helix model of university–government–industry relationships and posits that future studies have to examine degrees of university-region engagement.