Japanese Investment in Russia: Far Eastern and Western Russian Regions Compared
Starting from Sakhalin projects and following the production facilities establishment by Japanese companies in manufacturing industries in Russia investment relations between the two countries started expanding rapidly during the recent couple of decades. Today investment cooperation has reached a new development stage, which reveals not only quantitative, but also qualitative changes in the pattern of FDI flows, especially in terms of structure and technological level.
The paper addresses the aspect of regional differences in the approach of Japanese investors toward projects in Russia. The comparison of the major macro-regions that attract Japanese investment (Far-Eastern and Western regions, including Central and North-Western Federal Districts) allows to reveal the critical differences in the industrial distribution that reflect specifics of economic development and investment climate of these territories. However, the Western and Eastern parts of Russia complement each other in terms of investment attraction and contribute to the development of multifaceted and diversified framework for investment cooperation between Russia and Japan.
This article is devoted to the development of migration in the Russian Far East over the past centuries. Analyzing census data (from the first census in the Russian Empire in 1897 to the Russian Census 2010), the author investigates temporal and spatial transformations of migration processes in the Russian Far East regions.
Using the concept of lifetime migration, the author reveals, what regions and territories provided the growth of the population of the Russian Far East during the last centuries, where these people were going and what results it produced. This paper also tries to explain, how the Russian Far East modified from the most colonized and actively increasing population region to the most quickly losing it territory in the Russian Federation.
This concept allows to estimate migration over a long period in the absence of other reliable sources of information. The Russian Far East made the transition from the most colonized and actively increasing population to the territory of most losing it.
Since 2015, the Free Port of Vladivostok regime has been functioning on the territory of five Far Eastern regions. It offers a simplified customs regime and a reduction in customs duties for entrepreneurs, as well as tax benefits and an immunity from time-consuming audit inspections. The Ministry for Development of Russian Far East introduced this economic instrument along with the Advanced Special Economic Zones to create an economic environment that will attract foreign investment to these territories, foster grassroots entrepreneurialism, and stimulate international trade with the Asia-Pacific countries. However, the local stakeholders negatively assess the results of the Free Port’s functioning. Over the past five years, the regime has not been able to fully reveal its potential. This article presents an analysis of Free Port’s development and highlights the most significant problems that impede the implementation of the concept of the Free Port, including legal regulation, strategic contradictions, malpractices, and infrastructural restrictions. The study is based on the analysis of official documents and legislative acts, statistical data, and analytical materials published by the Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East and the Far East Development Corporation, as well as sixteen semi-structured interviews in Vladivostok.
The report is devoted to comprehensive research in the field of strategic planning, logistics infrastructure in to ensure the implementation of export-import and transit potential of Russia in the global system of international transport corridors (ITC). Particularly attention spares to the place and the role of the Russian Transportations Ministry and the Russian Rail-way joint stock company in the investment projects realization, also to the problems of the logistics infrastructure development in sea ports and multimodal transport junctions for example North-East and Moscow regions.
The Asia-Pacific region is of growing importance for both the United States and Russia, each of which seeks to “pivot” or “rebalance” its global commitments toward Asia. Yet the focus of U.S.-Russia relations remains on Europe and the former Soviet Union, and neither country has paid sufficient attention to the implications of their respective Asian pivots for the bilateral relationship. Since U.S.-Russia relations in Asia and the Pacific remain underdeveloped, the region holds the potential to act as a sort of laboratory for trying out new mechanisms for bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
Both countries are turning to Asia primarily to benefit from Asia’s economic dynamism. At the same time, they recognize that Asia’s growth is imperiled by a range of traditional and nontraditional security threats, from the nuclear-tipped standoff on the Korean Peninsula to territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea to terrorism, climate change, migration, and other transnational challenges. Among the most important drivers of change in Asia is the continued rise of China, which is in different ways a critical partner for both Washington and Moscow.
Because Asia’s economic and security landscape remains in flux and the legacies of mistrust hanging over U.S.-Russia relations in Europe are less pronounced, Moscow and Washington have an opportunity to build more effective forms of cooperation from the ground up. This will require efforts from both sides. The United States must reconcile cooperation with Russia with its existing commitments, including long-standing alliance relationships and growing security cooperation with several states in the region. Russia’s challenge lies mainly in convincing states and regional institutions that it is an important player in the region—which in turn requires it to more fully integrate Siberia and the Russian Far East into Asia’s regional economy—and more than a regional satellite of China.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.