Что влияет на исполнение обязательств «Группы двадцати» и БРИКС: сравнительный анализ
This article explores the internal and external factors influencing the compliance performance of the Group of 20 (G20) and the BRICS. The authors start with an overview of the G20 and BRICS compliance patterns using comparative data onthe number of commitments made by the two institutions, the level of institutional compliance, and distribution of commitments and compliance across issue areas. G20 compliance is traced since the leaders’ first 2008 summit in Washington. The BRICS compliance performance record includes data since the third stand alone summit in Sanya in 2011.The study then takes stock of compliance catalysts embedded in the summits’ discourse: priority placements, numerical targets, timelines, self-accountability pledges and mandates to implement and/or monitor implementation. The authors review trends in the use of catalysts in different years and issue areas and identify commonalities and differences.The analysis then turns to external causes of compliance and focuses on demand for collective actions and members’ collective power to respond and deliver on their pledges. Here the study explores whether the self-accountability mechanisms created by the institutions in response to the demand for effectiveness and legitimacy facilitate compliance.The article concludes by highlighting catalysts, causes of compliance and their combinations with the greatest power to encourage implementation, explaining trends in G20 and BRICS compliance performance. The data sets on G20 and BRICS differ in terms of scale. The G20 data set contains 1,511 commitments of which 114 have been monitored, and the BRICS data set contains 231 commitments of which 23 have been monitored.
Health is an indispensable public good. At the national level it has been manifested in the BRICS governments’ commitment to scale up health financing, though to a different degree. At the global level it is evidenced by the international community progress on the three health-related Millennium Development Goals. However despite successes in fighting infectious diseases, child and maternal mortality, old risks persist and new challenges emerge, resulting from the 2008 financial crisis, current slack economic growth and growing economic inequality. The BRICS face these challenges and have begun cooperation on health issues. It is important that they build their emerging health agenda recognizing these challenges, committing to develop sustainable policy solutions, and cooperating with other actors to promote effective health governance for change. To explore how the BRICS contribute towards global health governance the article first considers the BRICS cooperation (its institutionalization, discourse, and engagement with other international institutions) with a focus on health issues. The authors then look into the BRICS members’ national health systems, challenges and goals. The article concludes with expectations of the BRICS future health agenda and its implications for global governance.
The global economic and political landscape is undergoing profound changes as the world enters a period of rapid transformation development strategies or adjusting their existing ones with greater prominence given to the role of innovation in the leading and underpinning development to strengthen their strategic arrangements for innovation⁃driven development, in a bid to improve their international competitiveness and seize the initiative in global competition Science, technology and innovation (STI) are recognized as the golden key to the door to growth In this trend of the times, the BRICS countries are spearheading the development of developing countries and attracting international attention with their highly innovative and distinctive development strategies Meanwhile, the BRICS as a bloc has become an exemplar of STI cooperation of developing countries.
As the rotating chair of BRICS in 2017, China will host the 9th BRICS Summit in Xiamen in September In the lead⁃up to the summit, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST) hosted the 5th BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Ministerial Meeting in Hangzhou in July, where BRICS STI ministers had in⁃depth discussions and reached wide consensus on topics including STI policy, cooperation in priority areas, and co-funding for multilateral research projects The BRICS Action Plan for Innovation Cooperation and the Hangzhou Declaration
To support the work relating to BRICS STI cooperation under the Chinese presidency, China Science and Technology Exchange Center (CSTEC), as entrusted by MOST, established a High Level Expert Group of leading professionals The High⁃level Expert Group complied theBRICS Innovative Competitiveness Report 2017, in collaboration with the science and technology sections of Chinese embassies in other BRICS countries and STI think tanks in other BRICS countries Based on the latest available data, the Report of the BRICS STI cooperation, and presents country and thematic studies on the STI development of BRICS countries.
The Report consists of four parts, with a total of 12 sub⁃reports Part I two general sub⁃reports: an analysis report which evaluates and forecasts the national innovation competitiveness of BRICS countries and their STI cooperation and strategic priorities; and a research report on the priority areas BRICS STI cooperation for win⁃win results This part evaluates the comprehensive national innovative competitiveness of the BRICS countries since 2001 and forecast their innovative competitiveness in the next five years It also assesses the current status and progress of China's STI cooperation with other BRICS countries, and identifies priority areas of BRICS STI cooperation, support for BRICS countries to strengthen their national innovation competitiveness Part Ⅱ presents six country reports, which evaluate, analyze and forecast of the national innovation competitiveness of the BRICS countries and studies of their STI cooperation within the BRICS framework Part Ⅲ presents four thematic reports, which focus on the four thematic areas to STI, including digital economy, inclusive finance, energy, and agriculture, elaborate the STI development and potential of the individual BRICS countries in those areas, and provide valuable inputs for the BRICS countries' national innovation competitiveness Part IV contains appendixes, including an introduction to the related indicator system BRICS STI cooperation.
This paper attempts to put G8 and G20 institutions within the same assessment paradigm on the basis of a functional framework. This approach allows comparing the G8 and G20 across at least three groups of indicators: performance of global governance functions, accountability and compliance performance; contribution towards global governance agenda; and engagement with the other international institutions. It begins with outlining the methodology, and goes over to the main findings and conclusions on each of the dimensions. Thus the study contributes to building a quantifiable evidence base for an assessment of the G20 and G8 effectiveness and to inform forecast of their future roles.
The G20 has proved that it can respond to crises. It has to live up to the expectations that it can prevent global risks, break dead locks other institutions responsible for resolving critical issues were unable to break. Challenging a plethora of skeptics G20 is now a long term process in motion. The G20 leaders’ decisions on the Mexican 2012 Presidency’s five priorities, which are broadly shared across the G20 members and beyond, are expected to advance global financial and economic stability; promote growth and jobs creation through structural reforms; make progress towards international financial institutions reform; strengthen financial regulation; enhance food security and mitigate commodity price volatility. The summit commitments and their implementation by the G20 and relevant international institutions will show how much the expectations held would prove to be the expectations met.
The paper presents analysis of the G8 and G20 assistance to developing countries in overcoming the consequences of economic and financial crisis. It assesses the G8's and G20's implementation of key global governance functions and highlights their engagement with international organizations. In conclusion the author gives recommendations for rational division of labour between the institutions in international development assistance.
For the first time since World War II, the U.S. seem to lose leadership at the multilateral trade talks shifting accents to bilateral and regional trade cooperation. The main reason for the shift is a deadlock at the WTO Doha-round negotiations where the U.S. face opposition of the steadily growing economies of India, China and Brazil.
Торговые переговоры, ГАТТ, ВТО, США, многосторонняя торговая система, ЕС, Япония, ИНДИЯ, КИТАЙ, Бразилия, Дж. Буш-мл., Б. Обама, М. Баррозу, Р. Зеллик, П. Лами, Р. Кирк, Л. да Силва, Карел де Гюхт, АТЭС, НАФТА, АСЕАН, трансатлантическое партнерство, "двадцатка", trade talks, GATT, WTO, U.S., Multilateral Trading System, Eu, Japan, India, China, Brazil, G.-W. Bush, B. Obama, M. Barrozo, R. Zoellick, P. Lamy, R. Kirk, L. da Silva, Karel de Gucht, APEC, NAFTA, ASEAN, Transatlantic Partnership, G 20
This is the second volume in a series of five books bringing together the results of intensive research on the national systems of innovation (NSI) in the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This book analyses the co-evolution of inequality and NSI across the BRICS economies. Inequality and Development Challenges argues that inequalities (assets, access to basic services, infrastructure, knowledge, race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location) that go beyond the aspects of income, must be factored into development strategies since the benefits of innovation are not distributed equally. It combines original and detailed data, making this book an invaluable resource for researchers and scholars in economics, development studies and political science, as well as policymakers and development practitioners interested in the BRICS countries.
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.