ICT Services Trade in the BRICS Countries: Special and Common Features
Involvement in the global innovation system and the level of ICT influence the technologicalstateoftheBrazil,Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) countries and their position in the world economy. Many studies were inspired that examined these economies from various prospective. However, only a few have specially focused on information and communication technologies (ICT), and particularly in services sectors. This paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the evolution of services ICT systems in BRICS. The main hypothesis of the article is that BRICS has made significant progress in economic cooperation, at the same time, the group has not been equally successful in designing and implementing their own agenda in the technology field. The BRICS are not released at a sufficient level of interaction and advocacy in ICT services, which would increase their role in international trade. The authors observe the retrospective of the process of formation of national innovation systems of thecountry participants of BRICS, consider current trends and challenges in the development of national markets for these services in each member country,and highlight future directions for the development. Then they provide an analysis of BRICS countries’ participation in the international ICT services trade. An estimation of revealed comparative advantage indicators allowed determining the dynamics in comparative advantage for ICT service trade in BRICS. Despite the increase in the volumeof export operations in the trade in ICT services, their level of competitiveness is declining. The most vulnerable to the reduction of revealed comparative advantage was India, at the same time Brazil and South Africa showed the least volatile dynamics. It is argued that the policies aimed at promoting investment and enhancing conditions for trade in ICT services contributed significantly to services exports expansion in BRICS. Based on the analysis, a conclusion is made about the current problems and insufficient level of technical cooperation within the group.
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 paper explores the evolution of trade and economic relations between Russia and Myanmar in 1948-2018. The author compares the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of Myanmar cooperation with China, India and Russia, highlighting their features and prospects. Summarizing the results, the author states that, despite the currently modest volumes of trade and investment, the potential for developing foreign economic relations between Russia and Myanmar is very high. However, Myanmar is an important link in the regional strategies of China and India, which also belong to the BRICS and the SCO. Therefore, it is impossible for Russia to build its political and economic ties with Myanmar without taking these aspects of regional relations into account.
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.
The article focuses on analysis of the main factors that influence the volume of commodities export and import in BRICS countries. As a key factor destabilizing the trade in commodities during the period of 2007 – 2011 the author identifies price volatility. The author analyses key measures, undertaken by BRICS governments at the national and international level. The author makes a forecast on the future role of BRICS in stabilizing the international trade in commodities and in contributing to food security.
The phenomenon of positive autocorrelation in daily stock index returns is often viewed as a consequence of stable behavioral patterns of certain investor groups (e.g., [Sentana, Wadhwani, 1992; Koutmos, 1997]). However, such patterns may change due to extreme events, i.e. currency and financial crises, and affect the autocorrelation of returns. Emerging markets have experienced severe crises in a recent decade and are therefore a suitable object to study.
Thus the focus of the current paper is to identify substantial changes in autocorrelation of BRICs’ stock markets index returns after experiencing these failures of financial system (the Asian crisis of 1997–1998, the crises in Russia, Brazil in 1998–1999 and the revaluation of the Chinese yen in 2005). Since all countries considered belong to the group of emerging markets and crises might have contagious effects we expect to reveal the influence of events in one country from the group on the markets in other countries. Studying stock market crises in BRICs and Thailand as possible causes of structural changes on stock markets is contribution of this paper to the existing literature. For this purpose we test for structural breaks in an ARMA-GARCH-model on the commonly known crisis dates.
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 paper explores the outcomes of Russian Federation G20 Presidency in 2013. The analysis is based on the model of balancing external conditions and national priorities for developing an agenda in informal institutions (supply-demand model). This analytical paradigm allows to reveal to what extent the Presidency has managed to ensure: 1) a high level of response to the key global governance challenges in the agenda and summit decisions; 2) a balance between national and other members’ interests in the Presidency priorities; 3) utilizing the institution’s capabilities; 4) conformity of the role chosen by the Presidency (organizer, mediator, political leader, national representative) to the combination of external and internal conditions.
Russia took over the responsibility for coordinating the G20 work from Mexico, accepting the rotating presidency of this premier forum for economic cooperation on December 1, 2012. The G20 met the fifth year of its work under conditions of a two speed recovery which by March 2013 transformed into a three speed recovery. Unsteady and sluggish growth, persisting imbalances and downside global economy risks demanded that this forum of the world largest economies concentrate the efforts on developing a set of measures aimed at boosting sustainable, inclusive and balanced growth and jobs creation around the world. These priorities constituted the core of the Russian G20 presidency concept, aimed at ensuring sustainable global growth and rebuilding of trust between the world economy different agents in accordance with the G20 mission and capability.
Consolidating efforts on its core economic and financial priorities, the G20 also launched collaboration to overcome such risks as increasing income disparities, chronic underinvestment into development of safe, secure and modern infrastructure, unforeseen consequences of regulation.
The analysis findings reveal that the Russian presidency managed to ensure a good balance of national interests and the partners’ prioritiesin the G20 agenda; utilizing the G20 capabilities to respond to the key global governance challenges. The choice of the presidency role depended on the nature of the issues and was defined by a combination of internal and external conditions. Thus, the acuteness of the problem for all summit participants determined demand for leadership in including into the economic forum agenda the debate on a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria. On employment and social policies the Russian presidency combining the roles of an organizer and a political leader helped upgrade the G20 dialogue to a new quality level.
A major success factor in deliberation and adoption of the comprehensive action plan on base erosion and profit shifting was the OECD capability to take responsibility for the plan development. With the OECD leadership, solid experts’ foundation, and a high level of relevance of the problem for all members, the presidency supported the process as the organizer.
On the topic of stimulating long-term investment, a priority for Russia as well as most of the G20 partners, the presidency managed to consolidate the efforts of several international institutions over a short period. On this priority, as well as on the financial regulation reform, the presidency acted as a representative of the national interests and an organizer. In developing the new development strategy the choice in favor of a combination of a mediator and an organizer proved most productive. As a result the G20 agreed a new cooperation for development outlook.
The presidency active collaboration with the international organizations and engagement with social partners was instrumental in harnessing their experts’ potential and enhancing the G20 transparency, legitimacy and effectiveness. The G20 institutions consolidation continued through development of new coordination mechanisms and strengthening accountability.
Under the Russian presidency the G20 reaffirmed its value as the premier economic cooperation forum. Emphasizing restoring strong and inclusive growth and employment while ensuring fiscal sustainability, the leaders for the first time in the history of the G20 stressed that the well-being of individual people should be at the center of the growth agenda. This consequential outcome of the five years collaboration might be a start of a new G20 agenda where inclusiveness is one of the pillars of growth.
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.