ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 481 received: 2022-09-05 DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2022.30 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 Jana ARBEITER University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: jana.arbeiter@fdv.uni-lj.si Maja BUČAR University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: maja.bucar@fdv.uni-lj.si ABSTRACT The paper analyses the response of the international development system aimed at offsetting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in less developed countries through the prism of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We apply a mixed-method approach, comparing the response of the international development system to the international cooperation targets under Goal 17 of the SDGs. The results of a comparative-historic analysis, the conceptualization and operationalization of key concepts, the case-study analysis, a secondary statistical analysis, and a secondary sources analysis indicate that the tools envisaged by SDG 17 for its implementation (increase of several financial resources for development, debt relief, COVAX, etc.) have not been adequately used by the international community to counter the impact of COVID-19 on development. Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals, SDG 17, COVID-19, global partnership, development cooperation, COVAX PARTENARIATO GLOBALE NELLA RISPOSTA AL COVID-19 SINTESI Nel contributo si analizza la risposta del sistema di sviluppo internazionale volta a compensare gli effetti della pandemia di COVID-19 nei paesi in via di sviluppo attraverso gli Obiettivi di Sviluppo Sostenibile - OSS (Sustainable Development Goals - SDGs) che guidano l’Agenda 2030 per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile. A questo scopo viene utilizzato un approccio a metodo misto che confronta la risposta del sistema di sviluppo inter- nazionale con i traguardi di cooperazione internazionale previsti dall’Obiettivo 17 dell’Agenda. I risultati di un’analisi storico-comparativa, la concettualizzazione e operazionalizzazione dei concetti chiave, l’analisi di casi di studio, un’analisi statistica secondaria e un’analisi di fonti secondarie indicano che i mezzi previsti dall’OSS 17 per la sua attuazione (aumento di risorse finanziare per lo sviluppo, riduzione del debito, COVAX ecc.) non sono stati adeguatamente utilizzati dalla comunità internazionale da poter combattere l’impatto del COVID-19 sullo sviluppo. Parole chiave: obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile, OSS 17, COVID-19, partenariato globale, cooperazione per lo sviluppo, COVAX ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 482 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 INTRODUCTION1 The widespread COVID-19 pandemic, declared in March 2020, has shaken and changed the very foun- dations of the international community, with serious implications not only for health systems, but also for economic and social systems in several countries. With its far-reaching (global) negative impact, the pandemic also exposed fundamental flaws in the international development system (Carver, 2020; Svetličič, 2021), where existing problems were only exacerbated (Prebilič & Kukovič, 2021; Caballero & Arbiol, 2022), seriously affecting sustainable development. As such, it affected the blueprint for international development, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).2 This means that “the coronavirus pandemic puts societies to the test: it is a test of po- litical leadership, of national health systems, of social care services, of solidarity, of the social contract” (The Lancet Public Health, 2020a). It tests our commitment to internationally agreed long-term strategies. The key objective of this paper is to look at the current progress in implementing Sustainable Develop- ment Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 17, which aim to improve the implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. The goals and targets, which have been set, are in serious danger of remaining unfulfilled. This is not only or primarily the result of pandemic. While the pandemic may provide governments with a convenient excuse for inaction, we also claim that the international community has not sufficiently internalised the SDGs to provide the resources necessary for their implementation. We aim to analyse the international development system’s response to SDG 17. The paper seeks to an- swer the following research questions: 1. What kind of development strategy is envisioned through the SDGs? 2. How is the international development system responding to the crisis and how is it helping the developing countries worst hit by COVID-19? Was their response in line with the spirit of the SDGs? 3. What are the implications of COVID-19 on the global partnership, as specified in Goal 17 of the SDGs, and what does this mean for the overall implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustain- able Development? Based on the literature review and comparative- historic analysis, the paper starts with a brief presenta- 1 The article is the result of the “Slovenia and its actors in international relations and European integrations” (P5-0177) re- search programme. 2 Transforming Our World: Rhe 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assem- bly Resolution no. 70/1 on 25 September 2015. tion of the origins of the SDGs and offers some facts on the effects COVID-19 has had on its implementation. This is followed by a theoretical framework seeking to understand the importance of implementing SDGs and global partnership, based on the descriptive method, as well as on the conceptualization and operation- alization of the key concepts used. The more detailed analysis of the complexity of international partnership through the prism of SDG 17 is divided into two parts. First, we analyse secondary statistical data and perform an analysis of secondary sources to show the financial trends associated with tackling the post-pandemic crisis. This is based on the assessment of trends in the Official Development Assistance (ODA), remittances, foreign direct investment (FDI), debt and trade. Sec- ondly, by using the case study method, we review the success of the COVAX Facility as a joint effort of global partnership in mitigating the spread of COVID-19 within and among societies. The paper concludes with a discussion of the main findings and answers the principal question of our research. BACKGROUND Back in 2015, the international community agreed on a set of goals to guide governments, international organisations, non-governmental organisations and many other (national and international) stakeholders in their (development) activities until 2030. The 17 SDGs and 169 targets, defined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustain- able Development (United Nations, 2015), encompass a wide range of ambitiously set targets for our common future that are expected to significantly improve the entire world in many areas, from eradicating poverty to reducing inequality, protecting the environment and biodiversity, global peace, and increasing international cooperation. While some experts may have doubts about the reality of such complex and ambitious goals and targets (e.g., Mathers & Deonandan, 2018; Kunčič, 2019), going so far as suggesting that SDGs could be understood as utopian global politics without adequate global means (Eskelinen, 2021), all governments have officially committed to their implementation, both at the national and international level. This has made the SDGs a blueprint for a better and more sustainable future and the 2030 Agenda a (new) global development agenda with a focus on the needs of future generations and the declarative universality of goals. The SDGs provide a framework for understand- ing the interconnectedness of economic, social, and environmental systems where well-planned, coherent contributions through global partnerships are neces- ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 483 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 sary for meaningful (and successful) global develop- ment (Jahan, 2016; Conceição et al., 2020; Elavarasan, 2022).3 These are shared goals, based on a set of prin- ciples, values, and visions necessary for a successful global development agenda that centres on people and the planet. However, the world needed a major “existential shock” to truly understand how interconnected the various systems in our societies are. COVID-19 re- vealed that direct effects on one system are difficult to contain, inevitably spilling over to other societal systems (Svetličič, 2020; Brglez et al., 2022). The pandemic triggered by COVID-19 has caused a global economic and social crisis for the first time (Conceição et al., 2020), forcing countries to face steep recessions and a decline in per capita income, increased poverty rates, and greater inequality (Leal Filho et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2020; Sumner et al., 2020). Despite the clearly negative spill over effects that the pandemic had in various areas, this multifaceted crisis forced countries at the outset to shift their focus to their own socio-economic (and health) issues, rather than on the SDGs and global partnership and solidarity. Since the pandemic began two years ago, there has been much research on how COVID-19 influenced the SDGs. We can divide it into three major categories: a.) Research providing an extensive analysis of im- pact of COVID-19 on achieving SDGs and the short- and long-term effects on SDGs (Barbier & Burgess, 2020; The Lancet Public Health, 2020b; Naidoo & Fisher, 2020; Shulla et al., 2021, etc.) b.) Research analysing challenges for SDGs in countries of the Global South (Narayan et al., 2020; Banerjee, 2021; Bottan et al., 2021; Fagbemi, 2021; Huq & Biswas, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Janssens et al., 2021; Kansiime et al., 2021; etc.) c.) Research analysing how COVID-19 influenced specific SDGs (Fenner & Cernev, 2021; Jaiswal & Jayakumar, 2021; Qadeer et al., 2022, etc.) However, what we think the literature is lacking is a specific study or review discussing the role of SDG 17 in post-pandemic recovery and keeping the world on track towards a more sustainable future through the implementation of SDG 17. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The SDGs represent a conceptual shift in the global development perspective, offering countries the oppor- 3 The basic premise of the SDGs is that in order to achieve them by 2030, working in silos should be avoided. 4 The eight MDGs on which countries agreed in 2000 were focused on combating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women. tunity to rise above the limitations of the international development system, which has often been defined by a clear division between the rich, developed Global North and the poor, developing Global South. This duality and classic framework of political and eco- nomic cooperation, which until recently dictated the behaviour of states, was often based on the pretext of solidarity and altruism toward the Global South. It was understood as a sine qua non of the modern in- ternational development agenda and rarely challenged (Reuveny & Thompson, 2007; Steffen et al., 2015). This is why, in theory, SDGs should be understood not just as a popular academic buzzword or a 21st century fad that generates academic citations, but as a step forward from the one-dimensional development agenda of the 20th century (Pradhan et al, 2017), which has failed to address increasing poverty and inequalities between and within countries (Milanovic, 2012; Sumner, 2012; Gore, 2015), and a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to development. The foundations of the SDGs were laid as early as the late 1970s and 1980s. These years were marked by the spread of newer, alternative visions of development and the use of the definition of sustainable develop- ment in the Brundtland Report. When 20th century de- velopment strategies in less developed countries failed to deliver desired outcomes, such as the promised stability, economic growth and (economic) develop- ment, criticism of development that focuses solely on economic growth began to grow (Offer, 2000; McNeill, 2007). By the end of the 20th century, it became clear that people are not merely a means to promote pro- duction and prosperity (UNDP, 1990) and that human well-being should be placed centre stage when prepar- ing development strategies (Sen, 1987). This was the context in which the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were developed.4 These can be understood as an implicit critique by individu- als and organizations from the Global South, i.e. that benefits of globalization are extremely unevenly dis- tributed and that the costs of policies that increase the economic benefits of developed countries are borne by all actors in the international community, espe- cially less developed ones (Carant, 2017). However, despite ambitiously promoting a global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and establishing a global strategy with quantitatively measurable indicators for successfully meeting the eight MDGs, the interna- tional community has failed to do so (Sianes, 2017). Despite its efforts, the MDGs remained deeply embed- ded in the development framework of the North-South divide, in which global partnerships were more of a catchphrase than a reality. The MDGs were meant ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 484 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 only for the Global South to follow (Marten, 2019), proving once again that countries of the Global South were still treated as unequal partners that needed to change and improve, leaving the Global North to be the one prescribing development strategies. The failure to reach the MDGs, the increasing number of global challenges (e.g., economic and environmental crises), and vocal appeals from the Global South for an equal distribution of burdens, led to the modernization and rearrangement of the current development agenda. The SDGs should not only be understood as a mere successor of the MDGs, but also a step towards an “ideal” liberal international order, where every country is responsible for ac- tions in areas, which are of “critical importance for the humanity” (UN, 2015, 5) and where the global partnership is understood as a two-way process, with each partner bearing specific responsibilities. With 17 SDGs, the international community has committed to a development strategy and mode of international (development) cooperation that should be inclusive and “leave no one behind” (Helgason, 2016). This was already indicated in the inclusive process of conceptualising and creating SDGs and is very deeply rooted in the 2030 Agenda, especially in SDG 17,5 which is explored in this article. SDG 17 is the most complex goal in the 2030 Agenda, focusing on strengthening the means of im- plementation and revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable development. It has 19 targets and 25 indicators (cf. UN SDG Tracker, 2020), calling on countries, the private sector, and civil society to build inclusive partnerships in order to align their actions, policies and means in five categories, as seen in the Figure 1. The strengthened global partnership envisioned in SDG 17 became the modus operandi for cross- sectoral, national, regional, and international coop- eration in pursuit of all SDGs by 2030. It follows the conceptual logic of the systems approach to sustain- able development,6 which states that achieving and maximizing the goals only from one system (e.g., economic, social or environmental) does not lead to sustainability because it does not take into account the impacts on the other systems (Barbier, 1987). The trade-offs between the different goals in these three systems must therefore be balanced to achieve sustainable development (Barbier & Burgess, 2017). 5 The shortened name for SDG 17 is “Partnerships for the Goals”, whereas its full name, “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development”, very clearly reveals its main objective. For further details, see UN (2015). 6 The systems approach to sustainable development highlights the importance of interconnectedness of economic, environmental, and social systems. It was first employed by Barbier (1987) through the Venn diagram representation, where the intersection of the goals from three systems depicts sustainable development. Therefore, an economic system should consider its impacts on biodiver- sity and biological productivity, good governance, and social stability when trying to be efficient, equitable, and aimed at poverty reduction (Barbier & Burgess, 2017). Even though the systems approach to sustainable development has certain limitations (e. g. how the trade-offs among the goals should be made) (Barbier & Markandya, 2012), synergies between different economic, social, and environmental goals are important (Elliott, 2006; Constanza et al., 2016). This can also be extended to the operational logic envisioned in SDG 17, where strengthened coopera- tion and shared responsibility among countries and other stakeholders are of key importance. Why? Such an approach creates synergies between the expertise and resources, needed for the achievement of SDGs at the national and international level (Detomasi, 2014; Besheim & Simon, 2017). SDG 17 could therefore be understood as the fulcrum for achieving all other SDGs, providing a number of tools for enhancing finance, technology, capacity building, trade, policy and institutional coherence, needed for the imple- mentation of the SDGs as a whole (UN, 2015). Most importantly, it offers a one-way ticket towards a more sustainable future that cannot be imagined without an effective global partnership. COMPLEXITY OF INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS: COVID-19 AND SDG 17 SDG 17 is the most comprehensive and complex goal, as it addresses the conditions necessary for the implementation of all previously set goals. However, Figure 1: Means for the implementation of sustainable development per SDG 17 (Source: Own elaboration). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 485 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 no global partnership or international cooperation can exist without the necessary resources that are also required to fully implement the 2030 Agenda. Yet, the issue is not only the financial costs,7 but also, as revealed through specific SDG 17 targets, the issue of human resources, access to technology and knowledge, the ability to participate on an equal footing in the international markets, etc. The UN even envisaged “inclusive partnerships between govern- ments, the private sector and civil society, built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals that place people and the planet at the centre, are needed at the global, regional, national and local level.” (UN SDG Tracker, 2020). Under SDG 17, the blueprint for strengthening multilateralism, building partnerships among diverse stakeholders, and the implicit indication that combating global crises can- not be solved by limited, national(istic) attitudes is, however, equally important. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only put tremen- dous pressure on health systems around the world, but also on the international economy, leading to an increase in poverty, hunger, and inequality and slowing progress toward a more sustainable future as envisioned in the 2030 Agenda (Lee at al., 2020; Leal Filho et al., 2020). Focusing on achieving the SDGs calls for urgent global cooperation and provid- ing assistance to those countries most in need (Cheng et al., 2021), whose issues will be likely overlooked in the aftermath of the pandemic (Zhou & Moinnud- din, 2021). Which is why the following sub-chapters are focused on the analysis of financial aspects of tackling the post-pandemic crisis and a review of the COVAX Facility, as an example of the global partner- ship, created in a joint effort to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Sharing the financial burden after COVID-19 SDG 17 is a goal that was designed to accelerate progress in other goals through collaborative efforts, shared burdens, and global partnership (Elavarasan, 2022), where sharing the financial burden is of crucial importance. Given that goals to end poverty, protect the environment, and support the well-being were already off track before the pandemic, the need for global partnerships is of crucial importance. Coping 7 The first four targets of SDG 17 address various funding sources, from the mobilization of domestic finance to meeting the “old” target for international development assistance of 0.7% GNI. 8 Target 17.1: Mobilize resources to improve domestic revenue collection. UN definition: Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection (For more, see UN SDG Tracker, 2020). 9 To adequately respond to the aftermath of the pandemic, the international development system should fully implement all de- velopment assistance commitments under SDG Target 17.2 and share the risks and burdens within global partnership, assisting countries most in need. 10 The World Bank, for example, has prepared an “emergency package” of USD 12 billion; the IMF activated USD 50 billion through its rapid disbursing emergency financing facilities (Moreira da Silva & Moorehead, 2020). with the pandemic has increased pressure to secure sufficient funding for various government interven- tions, not only in the health sector but also in the national economy. As a result of the economic crisis and budgetary freezes, tax and fiscal revenues in gov- ernment budgets have declined, putting severe pres- sure on less developed countries. This has increased the challenge of target 17.1,8 which calls for more national resources to implement the SDGs. Some authors even believe that “there will be not enough money or attention to banish poverty and inequality, expand health services and overturn biodiversity loss and climate change, all by 2030” (Cheng et al., 2021, 13). While spending at the national level has been in- creasing, several international sources have decreased the among of funds dispersed. What is certain is that COVID-19 is widening the pre-pandemic financing gaps to achieve the SDGs (UNCTAD, 2022a). We firstly analyse ODA, which has traditionally been a source of funding to mitigate the immedi- ate effects of various crises and is known to be an especially important part of the global response to any kind of humanitarian disaster. As a response to COVID-19, it was hoped that both national and international donors would increase their ODA contributions, helping to address the pandemic and implement SDG 17.9 As a first response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, several claims sug- gested that redirecting ODA funds towards helping developing countries to improve their capacity to respond to health crises was crucial. Yet, there were no open commitments to increasing ODA volume at the time (OECD, 2020a). At several fora, heads of international organisations appealed to protect and, if possible, increase the 2019 ODA level (DAC CSO Reference Group, 2020; European Commission, 2020; OECD, 2020b; IMF, 2020). A positive response to such initiatives came from various international organisations, which re-directed some of their funds towards COVID-19 crisis,10 as well as organised special joint emergency funds to which individual countries could add their contribution. At the level of individual donors, only scarce information was available, mostly on re-directing already planned ODA to the health sector; however the long-pledged 0.7% of GNI has not been achieved, not before, dur- ing, or after the pandemic, as shown in Table 1. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 486 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 ODA in 2021 remained at 0.33% of donors’ combined GNI – unchanged from 2020, despite the 4.4% increase in real terms from 2020 (OECD, 2022). However, it is very important to note that despite an in- crease in overall ODA levels between 2020 and 2021, in 23 out of 29 DAC donors,11 this increase was mostly due to donated vaccine doses, which were reported as ODA and amounted to 3.5% of the total ODA (Tew & Breed, 2022; OECD, 2022).12 If we exempt COVID-19 vaccine donations from ODA, the increase from 2020 would only be 0.6% in real terms (OECD, 2022). What is interesting is that COVID-related ODA spending for 2020 and 2021 was mostly not allocated to specific countries; rather, it was used either for vaccine research or other funds, related to COVID (Tew & Breed, 2022). In addition to ODA, remittances have become an increasingly important source of finance for develop- ment. The UN acknowledges that facilitating remittance flows at low cost will not only support the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, but also the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs (UN, 2015). In the past, remittances have contributed to the alleviation of poverty (Masron & Subramaniam, 2018), to improved access to water, food, medicine, housing, and clean energy (Gyimah-Brempong & Asiedu, 2014; Ndiaye et al., 2016; Ebadi et al., 2018; UN, 2019a), to promoting entrepreneurship (UNDP, 2016), and empowering women (Sambo, 2016; UN 2019b). In 2020, remittance flows to low- and middle- income countries were expected to decline by around 20%, marking the sharpest decline in recent history (World Bank, 2020). However, remittance flows defied predictions and their decline in 2020 – compared to 2019 – was only 1.6% (World Bank, 2021). Even though it was estimated that compared to 2019, when remittances amounted to $554 billion, the 2020 number would be only $445 billion (ECDPM, 2020), remittance flows in 2020 reached $540 billion (World Bank, 2021). Despite very bleak estimates, this is consistent with the evidence 11 In 2020, ODA rose only in 16 DAC donors and fell in 13 (Ahmad & Carey, 2021). 12 Vaccine donations, which are counted as ODA, were offered to countries in need only when DAC members had an excess of their do- mestic supply (Schütte, 2022), which is especially worrying from the perspective of global partnership. 13 Such factors included lock-downs in developed countries, where migrant workers suffered disproportionally because of their temporary contracts or losing their jobs or even their right to stay in a host country, having to rely on their saving to sustain themselves. 14 The study, made by Kpodar et al. (2021, 16), shows that for a 10% rise in COVID-19 cases per million in a population, a 0.3 percentage point increase in remittances would occur after five months after the initial fall due to the COVID-19 shock. that remittances are known to be excellent automatic stabilizers that often regulate production and consump- tion, especially among the poorest (Combes & Ebeke, 2011). After the initial fall, which can be attributed to several factors13, migrant workers tried to support their families at home despite the economic effects on their lives, as shown by Kpodar et al. (2021).14 If the predictions for the remittance flows proved too pessimistic, the same cannot be said for the FDI and global value chains, which were very much affected by COVID-19 (UN, 2020a, 58–59). Global FDI flows were forecasted to decrease by up to 40% in 2020, from their 2019 value of $1.54 trillion, according to the World Investment Report 2020 (WIR) (UNCTAD, 2020). However, the world FDI inflows in 2020 de- clined by 35% to $1 trillion, from $1.5 trillion in 2019 (UNCTAD, 2021). Despite predictions that FDI inflows to developing countries would be hit especially hard in 2020, as export-oriented and commodity-linked investments were among the most seriously affected, the biggest decline in 2020 was reported in the inflows to developed economies (UNCTAD, 2021). FDI fell in developed economies by 58% (UNCTAD, 2021), with the biggest decline within the European Union (73%) (Moosa & Merza, 2022, 3). The relatively quick return of the global FDI flows in 2021 (growth of 64%, compared to 2020, amount- ing to $1.58 trillion in 2021) (UNCTAD, 2022b) can be attributed to the high level of interconnectedness of the international economy and the extensive re- covery measures, undertaken in developed countries. Their economies recovered much better than those of developing countries, opening the door to FDI flows as well: three quarters of the global increase (64%) of FDI inflows happened in developed countries. On the other hand, overall FDI to developing countries con- tinued to decrease (-8% in 2020) (UNCTAD, 2021). Yet, big asymmetries of inflows remained: Asian countries were the most resilient and inflows in China 2019 2020 2021 ODA (USD) 152.8 billion 162.2 billion 178.9 billion % of donors’ GNI 0.30 0.32 0.33 Increase compared to the previous year / 3.5% 4.4% Table 1: ODA 2019–2021 Trends (Source: OECD, 2022). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 487 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 actually increased by 6%. But FDI inflows to African countries fell by 16% and by 45% to Latin America and the Caribbean (UNCTAD, 2021). In 2021, FDI inflows to developing economies increased by 30%; however this was again mainly due to the increase in Asia,15 whereas the increase in FDI flows in other developing countries was much smaller (UNCTAD, 2022a). This suggests that another important stream of funding for development and consequently SDGs’ implementation had decreased. COVID-19 caused a collapse in FDI flows to sectors that are relevant for the implementation of the SDGs in developing countries (UNCTAD, 2021). Many least developed countries (LDCs) are dependent on FDI in extractive industries, many small island developing states are dependent on investment in tourism, and landlocked developing countries are disproportionally affected by supply chain blockages. But as the WIR rightly acknowl- edges (UNCTAD, 2020; 2021; 2022), the COVID-19 crisis only compounded several SDG-relevant issues, including already insufficient private investment in SDG-relevant sectors in developing countries. Cur- rent (foreign) investment in SDG sectors, especially in developing countries, is too low and was not grow- ing at the sufficient rate even before the pandemic (UNCTAD, 2022a). Sustainability financing16 largely bypasses them and SDG-specific investment policies are not being rolled out fast enough. This situation is compounded by the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, which risks subordinating progress on the SDGs to the priority of economic recovery (UNCTAD, 2020, 39; Moosa & Merza, 2022). Debt rescheduling/cancellation needs to be mentioned, not only because meeting the payment significantly affects the national budgets of highly indebted developing countries. One of the SDG 17 targets addresses debt management17. In 2022, 58% of low-income and least developed countries (LDCs) are currently assessed as being at high risk of external debt distress or already in debt distress (Estevão & Essl, 2022). In 2020, we likewise witnessed the largest debt surge since World War II, with global debt rising to $226 trillion (Jain, 2022). Rising debt-service costs di- 15 It is important to note that six economies account for more than 80% of FDI in Asia and that Asia’s FDI inflows account for 40% of global FDI (UNCTAD, 2022a). 16 Under this category, UNCTAD includes investments in the energy sector, where most of the investment in new, sustainable energy sources is occurring in developed countries (UNCTAD, 2020). 17 17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress. 18 The main goal of the DSSI is to allow poor countries to concentrate their resources on fighting the pandemic and safeguarding the lives and livelihoods of millions of the most vulnerable people. Borrowers commit to use freed-up resources to increase social, health, or economic spending in response to the crisis (World Bank, 2022). 19 This was just a quarter of the amount the G20 announced the DSSI would deliver. 20 Target 17.11. Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed coun- tries’ (LDCs) share of global exports by 2020. 21 Target 17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda. minish fiscal space for countercyclical measures and for investments in long-term structural transformation and the SDGs (UNCTAD, 2020, 127). What is of particular concern is growing private sector debt: traditionally, public and private debt were similarly proportioned. However, following the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, private debt esca- lated to 139 per cent of GDP of developing countries (UN, 2020c, 139). The WB Development Committee and the G20 Finance Ministers therefore endorsed the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) in April 2020 in the response to a call by the WB and the IMF to grant debt-service suspension for 2021 to the poorest countries to help them manage the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic18. However, the initiative was somehow disappointing, since it only suspended debt service payments for 48 out of 73 eligible countries to participating bilateral creditors, amounting to $10.3 billion between May 2020 and June 2021 (IMF, 2021)19. At the same time, private creditors did not participate in the debt service suspension on equal terms (Jain, 2022). We can thus agree with the Shadow Report of EURODAD (Fresnillo, 2020) that DSSI is merely postponing repayment pressures instead of cancelling debts. The Report warns “DSSI-eligible countries are already scheduled to repay USD 115 billion of debt in 2022–2024, just when their suspended 2020 payments come due”. So, while at first sight the Initiative looks positive, there are many caveats attached which seri- ously diminish its effectiveness. At the start of 2020, it was expected that trade issues would be one of the key areas of focus for advancing the 2030 Agenda, since one of the important targets within SDG 17 has a 2020 deadline.20 The importance of trade-related issues for developing countries in gen- erating the resources necessary for implementing the SDGs lies in the fact that trade issues have two explicit targets21 to be met. Yet, even pre-COVID trends suggest that the world is far from implementing these targets. In reality, the international trade and its multilateral regime are suffering from a complex set of issues, only exacerbated by the pandemic (UN, 2020c). An earlier, more pessimistic WTO scenario even projected that world trade would fall by 13% to 32% in ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 488 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 2020. In June 2020, the WTO Trade outlook predicted a fall of trade volume by 12.9% (WTO, 2020a), which proved a too pessimistic estimate (Arriola et al., 2022). In fact, global trade fell by 9.6% only in 2020 and was already rebounding in 2021. It increased by about 13% compared to the pre-pandemic figures, proving the global trading system was more resilient than expected (WTO, 2021; UNCTAD, 2022c). The WTO was particu- larly concerned with the impact of COVID-19 on least developed countries (LDCs), since their participation in global trade had already been declining in 2019, in clear contradiction to Target 17.11. Their decline was sharper than the world average, resulting in a 35% drop in LDC service exports and 12% decline in their exports of goods in 2020 (WTO, 2022a; UNCTAD, 2022c).22 Considering that LDCs depend on a limited number of export items23 and are often highly depend- ent on a small number of markets, they therefore have a higher risk of being exposed to external shocks. For several LDCs, top destination markets include those that were among the worst affected by the outbreak of COVID-19 (i.e., China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States) (WTO, 2020b). This meant a sharp decline of export earnings24. On the import side, many LDCs depend on the import of food and medical equipment and were thus worried about different trade restrictions/export bans undertaken by some countries. The WTO’s Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation called upon LDCs to enhance their re- quests for trade-related technical assistance activities, resulting in 80 capacity-building activities, which were accrued out in 2021 (WTO, 2022b). However, the question remains whether these kinds of activities, where 30% take the form of e-learning courses, ac- celerate trade in LDCs. We only analysed the targets related to the financial flows, yet others show no more encouraging data. When looking at the policies, undertaken by the developed countries, the obvious self-interest stands out. Some rhetoric took place on global fora, but at most, only minor shifts in the re-allocation of development assistance to the health sector were implemented. Debt relief was insignifi- cant, with FDI and trade mostly bypassing the LDCs. This suggests that not only is SDG 17 out of reach, but 22 Even South-South trade was affected similarly to global averages (UNCTAD, 2022c). 23 Preliminary data, gathered by WTO (2020c), suggested that trade value has plunged for LDC exporters of petroleum and minerals, manu- facturing items (e.g., clothing), agricultural products (e.g., horticulture exports) and services exports (tourism revenues). 24 Bangladesh suffered an 83 per cent decline in its textile exports in April 2020 in comparison to 2019, Ethiopia lost 80 per cent of its flower exports to European markets (WTO, 2020b). 25 As reported in the Sustainable Development Report, only Sweden, Norway, Australia, Israel and Luxembourg have already achieved SDG 3, whereas 101 countries still face major challenges regarding this Goal and 51 countries face significant chal- lenges (Sachs et al., 2020). 26 Policy issues are overseen by WHO; CEPI is responsible for coordinating the development and manufacturing of the vaccine, whereas AVI is responsible for procurement and delivery (Rutschman, 2021a). 27 Countries of the global South are in the international development system commonly classified into categories according to the level of income, measured by gross national income per capita, which were developed by the World Bank in the 1980s and are gradually updated. due to its importance for the overall implementation, the overall SDG agenda is increasingly becoming an illusion. Still, there are certain positive examples of international cooperation, which were prompted by COVID-19, raising hopes that the ideals of solidarity within the global community have not been lost at times of crisis. We consequently analyse the case of COVAX in more detail to see if such initiatives re- ally provide us with possible models of future global public-private cooperation. The case-study of tackling COVID-19 through global partnerships: the example of the COVAX Facility With the global pandemic, many health challenges, which the global community has been trying to over- come for years, have been put on hold. Although some slow progress has been made in increasing life expec- tancy, lowering child mortality, eradicating a wide range of diseases, sanitation and hygiene, COVID-19 has diverted the attention from these problems and shifted focus to responding to health emergencies.25 The COVAX Facility was a very promising en- terprise. Launched in June 2020, it offered a ray of hope for combating COVID-19 and trying to contain the worsening spill-over effect in other systems. The COVAX Facility was developed as a key vaccine pillar of the Access to COVID -19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, leading a global risk-sharing mechanism for the pooled procurement and equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, co-led by the World Health Organisation (WHO), GAVI, and the Coalition of Epidemic Prepar- edness Innovation (CEPI) (GAVI, 2020; CEPI, 2020; Peacock, 2022).26 Its goal in early 2020 was to acceler- ate the development and production of new COVID-19 health technologies (WHO, 2020) and enable access to vaccines for countries that were unable to secure direct agreements with vaccine manufacturers (Sharma et al., 2021). Unsurprisingly, these were (and still are) mostly countries that the World Bank classifies as low and lower middle-income countries.27 Even though on paper, the COVAX facility could be regarded as a prime example of public-private partner- ship, envisioned and promoted within the SDG 17, the reality of it is far from perfect. The pandemic not only ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 489 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 revealed the global shortage of health workers and the need for better public health preparedness (UN, 2020a, 31), but it also exposed the unilateral action of some countries, both in securing individual short-term needs (preventive equipment)28, as well as using their wealth to claim primary rights to vaccination or/and medicines solely for their own citizens.29 The global partnership and shared responsibility of COVAX can therefore be challenged on grounds of stakeholder participation, policy formulation and its implementation. At the level of stakeholder participation, the main concern is an existing large power imbalance between high-income and upper middle-income countries that are able to self-fund their participation in COVAX and lower middle-income countries and low-income countries, which have to rely on the “good will” of wealthy nations and pharmaceutical companies to donate funds or vaccines (Emanuel et al., 2021; Rutschman, 2021b). Self-funded partici- pating countries were able to freely distribute doses of the vaccine domestically according to their own rules, whereas funded (low and lower middle-income countries) had to use the global framework, designed by the WHO (Rutschman, 2021b). This was especially challenging for two reasons. Firstly, the national poli- cies of self-funding participating countries, where, for example, Israel made it very difficult for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to access the vaccines. Similarly, the Taiwanese found it very challenging to secure COVID-19 vaccines due to the so-called “One China” policy (Dyer, 2021; Zhong & Schuetze, 2021). Secondly, the countries with poor(er) economic development were not able to purchase vaccines and depended on vaccine donations from wealthy nations and vaccine delivery by the pharmaceutical companies. This led to very low vaccination rates (Ec- cleston-Turner & Upton, 2021; Emanuel et al., 2021; Rutschman, 2021b; OHCHR, 2022). By 2022, less than 14% of people in low-income countries had re- ceived a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine, compared to almost 70% vaccinations in high-income countries (OHCHR, 2022). Even though COVAX set its goal to deliver 1.8 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine to 92 28 As reported by the World Trade Organization, the restrictions on personal protective equipment (e.g. masks, gloves and protective cloth- ing) and on the means of production of medicines and medical equipment (respirators) have been firstly imposed in Asian, Arab and European countries, the United States and many Latin American, Eastern European Countries (WTO, 2020a). 29 President Donald Trump, for example, wanted the primary rights for the COVID-19 vaccine for the United States of America. It was reported that Trump administration offered a German medical company “a large sums of money” for exclusive access to a COVID-19 vaccine (Oltermann, 2020). 30 They point to the United States, which announced massive donations, delivering only 43% of its pledge by the end of 2021, despite claiming global leadership in pandemic response (de Bengy Puyvallée & Storeng, 2022, 6). 31 China, for example, donated all of its doses bilaterally to like-minded countries, with which it already cooperates at the political and economic level, in order to strategically build its reputation and position itself towards the global North (Huang, 2021; Lee, 2021). 32 On the one hand, vaccine manufacturers were selling vaccine doses at full prices to wealthy nations, who then decided whether to do- nate them to COVAX, which not only benefited the manufactures but also countries in which those manufacturers are based (Vanity Fair, 2021). On the other hand, wealthy nations (the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Norway) in 2020 rejected the proposal of India and South Africa, made to the World Trade Organisation, to temporarily suspend intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines and technologies, so as to make them accessible to low and lower-middle income countries (Usher, 2020). low-income countries in 2021 (WHO, 2021a), recent data shows that COVAX has shipped only around 1.3 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines to 87 low and lower-middle income countries to date (WHO, 2022). What is even more worrying is that 82% of all doses of the vaccine delivered to low-income countries were shipped by COVAX (ibid.) and not by self-funding countries donating vaccines, as recommended by COVAX. This suggests that the measure was only a provision on paper, not living to its potential. At the level of policy formulation and implementa- tion, vaccine nationalism was front and centre. The main contributors to COVAX were too short-sighted to see the potential global risks. Their actions were often led by protectionist, populistic, and sometimes even xenophobic political decisions (Wong, 2021; James & Valluvan, 2020). Even though vaccines were donated to COVAX, a lot of countries and vaccine manufactur- ers poorly adhered to the principles, decided under COVAX (GAVI, 2022). Firstly, 30% of donated doses in the low and middle-lower income countries were delivered through bilateral arrangements, rather than through COVAX, as envisioned (de Bengy Puyvallée & Storeng, 2022). Secondly, as the analysis by de Bengy Puyvallée & Storeng (2022) shows, not only were shared doses actually delivered only when donor countries had already vaccinated their adult population with two doses in the second half of 2021, there was also a gap between pledged and delivered donations.30 Moreover, donations “have [far too often] been ad hoc, provided with little notice and short shelf lives”, which made it difficult for the recipient coun- tries to implement the vaccination (WHO, 2021b). Despite COVAX’s principle of allocating vaccine donations according to pre-defined rational criteria, geopolitical factors and national self-interest often prevailed (de Bengy Puyvallée & Storeng, 2022). CO- VAX proved to be another developmental mechanism embedding the “old” donor-recipient relationship of modern international development system, where national interests, influence, and soft power are at the forefront (Arbeiter et al., 2019; Almeida, 2020). With vaccine diplomacy,31 pursuing commercial interests32 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 490 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 and vaccine nationalism, the limitations of the Bretton Woods development system33 were simply translated to COVAX and its policy formulation and implemen- tation. Instead of a win-win solution, COVAX became an instrument for zero-sum geopolitical power play, deepening inequality, poverty and the gap between the global North and South (Choi, 2021; Wong, 2021). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The SDGs bring together different aspects of human development – from poverty, economic growth, educa- tion and health – and are more important now than ever. If we fail to implement the set goals and targets, income losses will cause vulnerable segments of so- ciety and families to fall below the poverty line and deepen inequalities around the world (UN, 2020b). However, the international community already faced an annual SDG investment gap of USD 2.5 trillion in 2019 (UN, 2020b), leaving the SDGs far from imple- mentation. The SDGs remain based on a voluntary effort, although UNDP monitors the progress. This means that the coronavirus pandemic was also a test of our commitment to internationally agreed long-term strategies, which essentially aim to prepare the world to deal more effectively with crises of this kind. The analysis shows that, in many instances, the implementation rate of SDGs was too slow even before the COVID-19 outbreak. Despite clear dedication to sharing the financial burden, we so far primarily see the already dedicated funds being redirected towards covering increased health expenditures, not really up- ping the game as initially promised by the international (development) community. As we have shown, even the small increase in ODA flows is mainly due to the donations of COVID-19 vaccines. There is still a lack of will-power to truly commit to the global partnership principles and come up with necessary funding. The pandemic has shown where the fundamental weak- nesses of our international (development) community lie. The reaction of the international community dem- onstrates how quickly global commitments (like SDGs) are forgotten. The focus is on protecting and solving an individual (national) situation, especially, if the 33 We define the Bretton Woods Development System as a system created after World War II by the countries of the Global North, which used ODA as a pretext to strengthen their economies and ensure the unimpeded flow of commodities and capital from the Global South. ODA served, of course, to promote economic development in the poorer regions and countries of the world but was also mainly used to broaden and strengthen political alliances, position themselves geopolitically, and strengthen the position of Global North countries in the international community. strategy, instrument, or goal are not mandatory with clear consequences and penalties for the countries. Such behaviour is frustrating, since we are faced with a global crisis, which is currently also compounded by the war in Ukraine. Still, we tend to seek a national response, ignoring that “historic crisis requires a fast, massive and coordinated global response to protect all people, save lives and tackle the economic fallout. Now is the time for international solidarity and leader- ship, not isolation; to reach out more internationally, not less” (EU, 2020b). SDGs are still on the international agenda, yet the commitment demonstrated so far by the individual countries is in line with the pessimistic view that re- gardless of the impact of the COVID-19, the SDGs had and have a poor chance of being implemented as envisaged. Despite several international appeals, plans for recoveries and actions, we still witness a lack of willingness to jointly address global issues. As the analysis shows, there is insufficient readiness to truly commit to the internationally agreed norms and rules. Consequently, this not only undermines the implementation of SDGs, but results in the inability of the countries to deal with today’s and future systemic challenges. COVID-19 did not trigger more intensive international development cooperation that would provide additional stimuli for SDG implementation. Rather, it seems to have revealed several negative at- tributes of the international community, which reflect a high level of individualistic behaviour of some of the key global powers. Even though the international (development) system would like to understand SDG 17 as a foundation for achieving all the other SDGs, the tools which it provides were not adequately used in combating COVID-19 effects. A lot of the solutions put on the table by the in- ternational community (debt relief, COVAX, etc.) once again reflect the division between the global North and South, which is only widening due to COVID-19. National interests, influence and soft power were once more at the forefront, showing that SDGs will not be able to stand the test of time until development actors are ready to admit that changes are needed in both halves of the world. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 491 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 GLOBALNO PARTNERSTVO KOT ODGOVOR NA COVID-19 Jana ARBEITER Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija e-mail: jana.arbeiter@fdv.uni-lj.si Maja BUČAR Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija e-mail: maja.bucar@fdv.uni-lj.si POVZETEK Cilji trajnostnega razvoja (CTR) predstavljajo ključno strategijo za globalni razvoj do leta 2030. Njihovo uresniče- vanje ni odvisno le od pripravljenosti vseh držav, da se jim zavežejo, ampak tudi od globalne solidarnosti, ki pomaga financirati potrebne aktivnosti na različnih področjih, zlasti v primeru manj razvitih držav. Članek analizira odziv mednarodnega razvojnega sistema na učinke pandemije covid-19 v manj razvitih državah, skozi prizmo CTR. Z upo- rabo mešanih metod, članek primerja odziv mednarodnega razvojnega sistema z zastavljenimi cilji mednarodnega razvojnega sodelovanja skozi prizmo CTR 17. Na podlagi zgodovinsko-primerjalne analize, konceptualizacije in operacionalizacije ključnih konceptov, analize študije primera, sekundarne statistične analize in analize sekundarnih virov, rezultati kažejo, da mednarodna skupnost za zmanjšanje vpliva covid-19 na razvoj, ni ustrezno uporabila predvidenih orodij, ki so predvideni za implementacijo CTR 17 (npr. povečanje finančnih sredstev za razvoj, odpis dolga, COVAX itd.). CTR so še vedno pomembni, vendar je pomanjkanje zavezanosti, ki so jo doslej pokazale posamezne države, skladno s pesimističnimi mnenji, da imajo CTR omejene možnosti za uresničitev, ne glede na vpliv covid-19 na mednarodni razvoj. Ključne besede: cilji trajnostnega razvoja, CTR 17, covid-19, globalno partnerstvo, razvojno sodelovanje, COVAX ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 492 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Arbeiter, Jana, Bučar, Maja & Boštjan Udovič (2019): Slovenian Development Cooperation and Commercial Diplomacy: Twins or Rivals? Teorija in praksa, 56, Special Issue, 454–471. Ahmad, Yasmin & Eleanor Carey (2021): Deve- lopment Co-operation During the COVID-19 Pande- mic: An Analysis of 2020 Figures and 2021 Trends to Watch. In: OECD, Development Co-operation Profiles. Paris, OECD Publishing, 1–46. Almeida, Celia (2020): Global Health Di- plomacy: a Theoretical and Analytical Review. https://oxfordre.com/publichealth/view/10.1093/a c r e f o r e / 9 7 8 0 1 9 0 6 3 2 3 6 6 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 1 / a c r e f o - re-9780190632366-e-25 (last access: 2022-02-18). Arriola, Christine, Kowalski, Przemyslaw & Frank van Tongeren (2021): The Impact of COVID-19 on Directions and Structure of International Trade, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 252. Paris, OECD Publishing. Banerjee, Ameet Kumar (2021): Futures Market and the Contagion Effect of COVID-19 Syndrome. Finance Research Letters, 43, 102018, 1–10. Barbier, Edward B. (1987): The Concept of Sustain- able Economic Development. Environmental Conser- vation, 14, 2, 101–110. Barbier, Edward B. & Anil Markandya (2012): A New Blueprint for a Green Economy. London, Routled- ge/Taylor & Francis. Barbier, Edward B. & Joanne C. Burgess (2017): The Sustainable Development Goals and the Systems Approach to Sustainability. Economics Discussion Papers, 2017, 28, 1–24. Barbier, Edward B. & Joanne C. Burgess (2020): Su- stainability and Development After COVID-19. World Development, 135, 105082, 1–4. Barbier, Edward B. (2013): Wealth Accounting, Ecological Capital and Ecosystem Services. Enviro- nment and Development Economics, 18, 2, 133–161. Beisheim, Marianne & Nils Simon (2018): Multi- stakeholder Partnerships for the SDGs: Actors’ Views on UN Metagovernance. Global Governance, 24, 4, 497–515. Bottan, Nicolas, Hoffmann, Bridget & Diego A. Vera-Cossio (2021): Stepping Up During a Crisis: The Unintended Effects of a Noncontributory Pension Program During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Development Economics, 150, 102635, 1–14. Brglez, Milan, Udovič, Boštjan & Amalija Maček (2021): Covid-19 and the European Parliament (Poli- cies): A Year of Perilous Ad-hoc Solutions. Journal of Comparative Politics, 14, 2, 81–97. Caballero, Sergio & Iñigo Arbiol (2022): COVID-19 Impacts on Multilateralism and Diplomacy: the Poten- tial of Business Diplomacy. International Journal of Diplomacy and Economy, 8, 1, 6–20. Carant, Jane Briant (2017): Unheard Voices: A Criti- cal Discourse Analysis of the Millennium Development Goals’ Evolution into the Sustainable Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, 38, 1, 16–41. Carver, Fred (2020): Showing the Way. In: UNA UK: Sustainable Development Goals: Building Back Better. London, Witan Media Ltd, 10–12. CEPI (2020): COVAX: CEPI’s Response to COVID-19. https://cepi.net/COVAX/ (last access: 2020-07-25). Cheng, Yi et al. (2021): Global Action on SDGs: Policy Review and Outlook in a Post-pandemic Era. Sustainability, 13, 11, 1–25. Choi, Seong Hyeon (2021): How the Pandemic Undermined US Hegemony in Asia-Pacific: The COVID-19 Vaccine War and the South China Sea. https://www.internationalaffairshouse.org/how-the- pandemic-undermined-us-hegemony-in-asia-pacific- the-covid-19-vaccine-war-and-the-south-china-sea/ (last access: 2021-07-25). Combes, Jean-Louis & Christian Ebeke (2011): Remittances and Household Consumption Instability in Developing Countries. World Development, 39, 7, 1076–1089. Conceição, Pedro et al. (2020): COVID_19 and Human Development: Assessing the Crisis, Envisioning the Recovery. Human Development Perspectives. New York, United Nations. Costanza, Robert et al. (2016): Modelling and Measuring Sustainable Wellbeing in Connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecological Economics, 130, 1, 350–355. DAC CSO Reference Group (2020): Joint Statement: COVID-19 Calls for Effective Aid and Development Cooperation More Than Ever. https://concordeurope. org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Joint-Statement-on- Covid-19_with-additional-signatories-13Apr2020.pdf (last access: 2020-07-25). de Bengy Puyvallée, Antoine & Katerini Storeng (2022): COVAX, Vaccine Donations and the Politics of Global Vaccine Inequity. Globalization and Health, 18, 26, 1–15. Detomasi, David (2014): The Multinational Corporation as a Political Actor: ‘Varieties of Cap- italism’ revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 3, 685–700. Dyer, Owen (2021): Covid-19: Countries are Learning What Others Paid for Vaccines. The BMJ, 2021, 281, 1–2. Ebadi, Narges, Amadi, Davod, Sirkeci, Ibrahim & Hugo Melgar-Quiñonez (2018): The Imapct of Remit- tances on Food Security Status in the Global South. Remittances Review, 3, 2, 135–150. Eccleston-Turner, Mark & Harry Upton (2021): International Collaboration to Ensure Equitable Access to Vaccines for COVID-19: The ACT-Accelerator and the COVAX Facility. The Milbank Quarterly, 99, 2, 426–449. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 493 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 ECDPM (2020): The Impact of COVID-19 on Re- mittances for Development in Africa. https://ecdpm. org/publications/impact-covid-19-remittances-devel- opment-africa/ (last access: 2020-07-26). Elavarasan, Rajvikram Madurai et al. (2022): Impacts of COVID-19 on Sustainable Development Goals and Effective Approaches to Maneuver Them in the Post-Pandemic Environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 1, 33957–33987. Elliott, Jennifer (2006): An Introduction to Sus- tainable Development. London & New York: Rout- ledge. Emanuel, Ezekiel J. et al. (2021): Enhancing the WHO’s Proposed Framework for Distributing COVID-19 Vaccines Among Countries. American Journal of Public Health, 111, 3, 371–373. Eskelinen, Teppo (2021): Interpreting the Sustain- able Development Goals Through the Perspectives of Utopia and Governance. Forum for Development Studies, 48, 2, 179–197. Estevão, Marcelo & Sebastian Essl (2022): World Bank Blogs: When the Debt Crises Hit, Don’t Simply Blame the Pandemic. https://blogs.worldbank.org/voic- es/when-debt-crises-hit-dont-simply-blame-pandemic (last access: 2022-07-25). EU (2020): Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Communication on the Global EU Response to COVID-19. JOIN/2020/11 final. https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020JC0011 (last access: 2020-07-27). European Commission (2020): The European Union Remains World’s Leading Donor of Official Development Assistance with €75.2 Billion in 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/ en/IP_20_674 (last access: 2020-07-25). Fagbemi, Fisayo (2021): COVID-19 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): an Appraisal of the Ema- nating Effects in Nigeria. Research in Globalization, 3, 100047, 1–9. Fenner, Richard & Thomas Cernev (2021): The Implications of the Covid-19 Pandemic for Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals. Futures, 128, 102726, 1–12. Fresnillo, Iolanda (2020): The G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative: Draining out the Titanic with a Bucket? Eurodad Shadow Report on the Limitations of the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative. https:// d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/eurodad/pages/768/ attachments/original/1594831184/DSSIShadowRe- port_designedIF_mp_CLEAN.pdf?1594831184 (last access: 2020-07-27). GAVI (2020): COVAX: Ensuring Global Equi- table Access to COVID-19 Vaccines. https://www. gavi.org/covid19/covax-facility (last access: 2020- 07-25). GAVI (2022): COVAX_Principles COVID 19 Vac- cine Doses COVAX. https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/ files/covid/covax/COVAX_Principles-COVID-19-Vac- cine-Doses-COVAX.pdf (last access: 2022-02-18). Gore, Charles (2015): The Post‐2015 Moment: Towards Sustainable Development Goals and a New Global Development Paradigm. Journal of Internation- al Development, 27, 6, 717–732. Gyimah-Brempong, Kwabena & Elizabeth Asiedu (2014): Remittances and Investment in Education: Ev- idence from Ghana. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 24, 2, 173–200. Helgason, Kristin S. (2016): The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Recharging Multilateral Cooperation for the Post-2015 Era. Global Policy, 7, 3, 431–440. Huang, Yanzhong (2021): Vaccine Diplomacy Is Paying off for China. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/china/2021-03-11/vaccine-diplomacypaying- -china (last access: 2022-02-18). Huq, Samin & Raaj Kishore Biswas (2021): Rethin- king Development Agenda on Post-COVID Era: a Case Study on Bangladesh. Pathogens and Global Health, 115, 6, 337–338. IMF (2020): Policy Responses to Covid-19. https:// www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Re- sponses-to-COVID-19 (last access: 2020-07-25). IMF (2021): Joint IMF-WBG Staff Note: DSSI Fiscal Monitoring Update. Policy Paper No. 2021/062. Wa- shington, D.C., International Monetary Fund. Jahan, Selim (2016): Human Development and the 2030 Agenda: Effecting Positive Change in People’s Lives. https://oecd-development-matters.org/2016/11/10/ human-development-and-the-2030-agenda-effecting-po- sitive-change-in-peoples-lives/ (last access: 2020-07-20). Jain, Shruti (2022): G20’s Debt Service Suspen- sion Initiative: A historical Comparison. https://www. orfonline.org/expert-speak/g20s-debt-service-suspen- sion-initiative/ (last access: 2022-07-25). Jaiswal, Neha & S. Jayakumar (2021): Covid-19 Pandemic-Changes in the Context of Global Environ- ment and Lessons Learned. In: Ramanathan, A.L., … & M.P. Jonathan (ed.): Environmental Resilience and Transformation in Times of COVID-19. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 207–222. James, Malcom & Sivamohan Valluvan (2020): Coronavirus Conjuncture: Nationalism and Pandemic States. Sociology, 54, 6, 1238–1250. Janssens, Wendy et al. (2021): The Short-Term Economic Effects of COVID-19 on Low-Income Households in Rural Kenya: An Analysis Using Weekly Financial Household Data. World Development, 138, 105280, 1–8. Kansiime, Monica K. et al. (2021): COVID-19 Im- plications on Household Income and Food Security in Kenya and Uganda: Findings from a Rapid Assessment. World Development, 137, 105199, 1–10. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 494 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 Kpodar, Kangni R., Mlachila, Montfort, N Quayyum, Saad & Vigninou Gammadigbe (2021): Defying the Odds: Remittances During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Working Paper No. 2021/186. Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund. Kunčič, Aljaž (2019): Prioritising the Sustainable Development Goals Using a Network Approach: SDG Linkages and Groups. Teorija in praksa, 56, Special Issue, 418–437. Leal Filho, Walter et al. (2020): COVID-19 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Threat to Solidar- ity or an Opportunity? Sustainability, 12, 13, 1–14. Lee, Doyeon, Kim, Seungwook & Keunhwan Kim (2020): International R&D Collaboration for a Global Aging Society: Focusing on Aging-Related Nation- al-Funded Projects. International Journal of Environ- mental Research and Public Health, 17, 22, 1–22. Lee, Seow Ting (2021): Vaccine Diplomacy: Nation Branding and China’s COVID-19 Soft Power Play. Place Brand Public Diplomacy, 2021, 6, 1–15. Marten, Robert (2019): How States Exerted Power to Create the Millennium Development Goals and How This Shaped the Global Health Agenda: Lessons for the Sustainable Development Goals and the Future of Global Health. Global Public Health, 14, 4, 584–599. Masron, Tajul Ariffin & Yogeeswari Subramaniam (2018): Remittance and Poverty in Developing Coun- tries. International Journal of Development Issues, 17, 3, 305–325. Mathers, Annalise & Deonandan Raywat (2018): Are the Sustainable Development Goals Realistic and Effective: A Qualitative Analysis of Key Informant Opinions. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 11, 3, 11–16. McNeill, Desmond (2007): ‘Human Development’: The Power of the Idea. Journal of Human Development, 8,1, 5–22. Milanović, Branko (2012): Global Income Inequa- lity by the Numbers: In History and Now. Policy Re- search Working Paper; No. 6259. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Moosa, Imad A. & Ebrahim Merza (2022): The Ef- fect of Covid-19 on Foreign Direct Investment Inflows: Stylised Facts and Some Explanations. Future Business Journal, 8, 20, 1–20. Moreira da Silva, Jorge & Susanna Moorehead (2020): Opinion: Aid in the Time of COVID-19 – 3 Things Donors Can Do Now. https://www.devex.com/ news/opinion-aid-in-the-time-of-covid-19-3-things- -donors-can-do-now-96848 (last access: 2022-07-25). Naidoo, Robert & Brendan Fisher (2020): Sustaina- ble Development Goals: Pandemic Reset. Nature, 583, 7815, 198–201. Narayan, Paresh Kumar, Devpura, Neluka & Hua Wang (2020): Japanese Currency and Stock Market— What Happened During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Economic Analysis and Policy, 68, 12, 191–198. Ndiaye, Ameth Saloum, Niang, Oumoul Khayri, Dedehouanou, Sessinou & Ya Cor Ndione (2016): Migration, Remittances, Labour Market and Human Capital in Senegal. PEP Working Paper Series 2016-10. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3167276 (last access: 2020-07-27). OECD (2020a): Six Decades of ODA: Insights and Outlook in the COVID-19 Crisis. OECD Development Co-operation Profiles 2020. Paris, OECD Publishing. OECD (2020b): Joint Statement by the OECD Deve- lopment Assistance Committee on the Covid-19 crisis. https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/joint-statement-by- -the-oecd-development-assistance-committee-on-the- -covid-19-crisis.htm (last access: 2022-07-25). OECD (2020c): Aid by DAC Members Increases in 2019 with More Aid to the Poorest Countries. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-deve- lopment/development-finance-data/ODA-2019-detai- led-summary.pdf (last access: 2022-07-25). OECD (2021): COVID-19 Spending Helped to Lift Foreign Aid to an All-Time High in 2020-Detailed Note. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable- -development/development-finance-data/ODA-2020- -detailed-summary.pdf (last access: 2022-07-16). OECD (2022): COVID-19 Assistance to Developing Countries Lifts Foreign Aid in 2021. https://www.oecd. org/dac/covid-19-assistance-to-developing-countries-lifts- -foreign-aid-in-2021-oecd.htm (last access: 2022-07-25). Offer, Avner (2000): Economic Welfare Measure- ments and Human Well-Being. Discussion Papers in Economic and Social History, 34. Oxford, University of Oxford. OHCHR (2022): High Commissioner for Human Rights: The Failure to Administer the COVID-19 Va- ccines in a Fair and Equitable Manner is Prolonging the Pandemic. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-relea- ses/2022/03/high-commissioner-human-rights-failure- -administer-covid-19-vaccines-fair-and (last access: 2022-03-23). Oltermann, Phillip (2020): Trump ‘Offers Large Sums’ for Exclusive US Access to Coronavirus Vaccine. The Guardian, 15. 3. 2020. https://www.theguardian. com/us-news/2020/mar/15/trump-offers-large-sums- -for-exclusive-access-to-coronavirus-vaccine (last access: 2020-07-25). Peacock, Stuart J. (2022): Vaccine Nationalism Will Persist: Global Public Goods Need Effective Enga- gement of Global Citizens. Globalization and Health, 18, 14, 1–11. Pradhan, Prajal et al. (2017): A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interacti- ons. Earth’s Future, 5, 11, 1169–1179. Prebilič, Vladimir & Simona Kukovič (2021): Cooperation Between Local Communities and the Civil Protection in Overcoming the COVID-19 Crisis: Ad Omnia Parati Sumus. Annales – Series Historia et Sociologia, 31, 3, 535–544. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 495 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 Qadeer, Abdul et al. (2022): Sustainable Deve- lopment Goals Under Threat? Multidimensional Impact of COVID-19 on Our Planet and Society Outweigh Short Term Global Pollution Reduction. Sustainable Cities and Society, 83, 103962, 1–10. Rahman, Hossain Zillur et al. (2020): Livelihoods, Coping and Support During Covid-19 Crisis. Dhaka, Power and Participation Research Centre & BRAC Insittute of Governance and Development. Reuveny, Rafael X. & William R. Thompson (2007): The North-South Divide and International Studies: A Symposium. International Studies Review, 9, 4, 556–564. Rutschman, Ana Santos (2021a): The COVID-19 Vaccine Race: Intellectual Property, Collaboration(s), Nationalism and Misinformation. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 64, 1, 167–201. Rutschman, Ana Santos (2021b): Is There a Cure for Vaccine Nationalism? Current History, 120, 822, 9–14. Sachs, Jeffrey et al. (2020): The Sustainable Devel- opment Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Develop- ment Report 2020. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sambo, Hamed (2016): Do Remittances Impact Gender Equality? Evidence from Africa. CEPN Working Papers 2016-08. Paris, Centre d’Economie de l’Univer- sité de Paris Nord. Schütte, Haje (2022): Covid-19 Vaccines and Official Development Assistance. https://oecd-deve- lopment-matters.org/2022/04/06/covid-19-vaccines- -and-official-development-assistance/ (last access: 2022-07-25). Sen, Amartya (1987): On Ethics and Economics. Malden, Oxford & Carlton, Blackwell Publishing. Sharma, Siddhanth, Kawa, Nisrine & Apoorva Gomber (2021): WHO’s Allocation Framework for COVAX: Is it Fair? Journal of Medical Ethics, 48, 4, 434–438. Shulla, Kalterina et al. (2020): Effects of Covid-19 on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Dis- cover Sustainability, 2, 15, 1–19. Sianes, Antonio (2017): Shedding Light on Policy Coherence for Development: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of International Development, 29, 1, 134–146. Steffen, Will et al. (2015): Sustainability: Plane- tary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science, 347, 62333, 736–748. Sumner, Andy (2012): Where Do the Poor Live? World Development, 40, 5, 865–77. Sumner, Andy, Hoy, Christopher & Eduardo Or- tiz-Juarez (2020): Estimates of The Impact Of Covid-19 On Global Poverty. WIDER Working Paper 2020/43. Helsinki, UNU-WIDER. Svetličič, Marjan (2020): The Lessons of Developed Countries for Covid-19 Exit Strategies. Teorija in prak- sa, 57, 4, 1065–1085. Svetličič, Marjan (2021): Searching for a Real New Normal After Covid-19. Družboslovne razprave, 37, 98, 69–93. Tew, Rob & Dean Breed (2022): ODA 2020–2021: Key Trends Before and During Emerging Crises. https://devinit. org/resources/oda-2020-2021-key-trends-before-during- -emergingcrises/?nav=moreabout#:~:text=spending%20 on%20health.,Global%20trends%20in%20ODA,to%20 reach%20US%24179%20billion (last access: 2022-07-25). The Lancet Public Health (2020a): Covid-19 Puts Societies to the Test (Editorial). The Lancet Public Health, 5, 5, 235. The Lancet Public Health (2020b): Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Threaten the SDGs? The Lancet Public Health. 5, 9, 460. UN (2019a): Remittances Matter: 8 Facts You Don’t Know About the Money Migrants Send Back Home. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/popula- tion/remittances-matter.html (last access: 2020-07-25). UN (2019b): International Day of Family Remittanc- es. https://www.un.org/en/observances/remittances-day/ resources (last access: 2020-07-25). UN (2020a): The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. New York, United Nations. UN (2020b): Shared Responsibility, Global Sol- idarity: Responding to the Socio-Economic Impacts of COVID-19. https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/ files/2020-03/SG-Report-Socio-Economic-Impact-of- Covid19.pdf (last access: 2020-07-25). UN (2020c): Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2020. New York, United Nations. UN SDG Tracker (2020): Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. https:// sdg-tracker.org/global-partnerships#target (last access: 2020-07-25). UNCTAD (2020): World Investment Report 2020: International Production Beyond the Pandemic. New York, United Nations. UNCTAD (2021): World Investment Report 2021: Investing in Sustainable Recovery. New York, United Nations. UNCTAD (2022a): World Investment Report 2022: International Tax Reform and Sustainable Investment. New York, United Nations. UNCTAD (2022b): Financing for Development: Mobilizing Sustainable Development Finance Beyond COVID-19. Note by the UNCTAD Secretariat. Geneva, United Nations. UNCTAD (2022c): Impact of the COVID-19 Pan- demic on Trade and Development. Geneva, United Nations. UNDP (1990): Human Development Report 1990. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press. UNDP (2016): Remittances. Financing Solutions for Sustainable Development. http://www.undp.org/ content/dam/sdfinance/doc/remittances (last access: 2020-07-25). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3 496 Jana ARBEITER & Maja BUČAR: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, 481–496 United Nations (2015): Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Ac- cepted and Proclaimed by a Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly no. 70/1, 25 September 2015. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/content/ documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustain- able%20Development%20web.pdf (last access: 2020- 07-20). Usher, Ann Danaiya (2020): South Africa and India Push for COVID-19 Patents Ban. The Lancet, 396, 10265, 1790–1791. Vanity Fair (2021): “We Are Hoarding”: Why the U.S. Still Can’t Donate COVID-19 Vaccines to Countries in Need. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/ why-the-us-still-cant-donate-covid-19-va ccines-to- countries-in-need (last access: 2021-08-25). WHO (2020): Commitment and Call to Action: Global Collaboration to Accelerate New COVID-19 Health Technologies. https://www.who.int/news/ item/24-04-2020-commitment-and-call-to-action-glob- al-collaboration-to-accelerate-new-covid-19-health- technologiesWHO (last access: 2020-07-25). WHO (2021a): COVAX Joint Statement: Call to Ac- tion to Equip COVAX to Deliver 2 Billion Doses in 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-05-2021-covax- joint-statement-call-to-action-to-equip-covax-to-deliv- er-2-billion-doses-in-2021 (last access: 2021-08-25). WHO (2021b): Joint Statement on Dose Donations of COVID-19 Vaccines to African Countries. https:// www.who.int/news/item/29-11-2021-joint-statement- on-dose-donations-of-covid-19-vaccines-to-african- countries (last access: 2021-12-01). WHO (2022): COVAX Calls for Urgent Action to Close Vaccine Equity Gap. https://www.who.int/news/ item/20-05-2022-covax-calls-for-urgent-action-to- close-vaccine-equity-gap (last access: 2022-03-23). Wong, Wilson Kia Onn (2021): Sino-Western Rivalry in the COVID-19 ‘Vaccine Wars’: A Race to the Bot- tom? Asian Education and Development Studies, 10, 4, 587–599. World Bank (2020): Outlook for Remittance Flows 2011-12. Migration and Development Brief, No. 13. Washington D.C., World Bank. World Bank (2021): Defying Predictions, Remittance Flows Remain Strong During COVID-19 Crisis. https:// www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/05/12/ d e f y i n g - p r e d i c t i o n s - r e m i t t a n c e - f l o w s - r e - main-strong-during-covid-19-crisis#:~:text=The%20 decline%20in%20recorded%20remittance,over%20 30%20percent%20in%202020 (last access: 2021-07-25). World Bank (2022): Debt Service Suspension Ini- tiative https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/debt/brief/ covid-19-debt-service-suspension-initiative (last access: 2022-03-25). WTO (2020a): Trade Statistics and Outlook. Trade Falls Steeply in First Half of 2020. Press Release. https:// docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009DP.as px?language=E&CatalogueIdList=264540&CurrentCata logueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglis hRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRe cord=True (last access: 2020-07-25). WTO (2020b): The COVID-19 Pandemic and Trade-Related Developments in LDCs. https://www.wto. org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/ldcs_report_e.pdf (last access: 2020-07-27). WTO (2021): World Trade Report 2021. Lausanne, World Trade Organisation. WTO (2022): WTO Members Look at How Trade Can Help LDCs Recover from COVID-19. https://www. wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/ldevc_18feb22_e. htm (last access: 2022-07-27). Zhang, Dongdong et al. (2021): Impact of COVID-19 on Urban Energy Consumption of Commercial Tourism City. Sustainable Cities and Society, 73, 103133, 1–12. Zhong, Raymond & Cristopher F. Schuetze (2021): Taiwan Wants German Vaccines. China May Be Standing in Its Way. New York Times. 16. 6. 2021. https://www. nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/taiwan-china-bion- tech-vaccine.html (last access: 2021-08-25). Zhou, Xin & Mustafa Moinuddin (2021): Impacts and Implications of the COVID-19 Crisis and Its Recovery for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Asia: A Review from an SDG Interlinkage Perspective. In: Ramanathan, A.L. et al. (eds.): Environmental Resilience and Transformation in Times of COVID-19. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 273–288.