Zwischen Skylla und Charybdis. Bedrohte Wissenschaftsfreiheit in Russland
Die Wissenschaft in Russland ist von Paradoxien geprägt. Obwohl sich
das Putin-System scharf vom Westen, seinen Werten und Verfahren abgrenzt,
steuert die Regierung Lehre und Forschung an Universitäten und
Instituten zunehmend nach neoliberalen Prinzipien und Standards, die
vom Westen übernommen werden. Marktlogik dominiert. Russlands Führung
will die Internationalisierung der Universitäten vorantreiben und die
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der russländischen Forschung erhöhen. Gleichzeitig
versucht der autoritäre Staat, die internationalen Kontakte der Wissenschaftler
zu kontrollieren. Mehrere Wissenschaftler wurden nach fragwürdigen
Verfahren als Spione inhaftiert, andere als „ausländische Agenten“
stigmatisiert. Die Freiheit der Wissenschaften ist sowohl von den neoliberalen
Praktiken wie auch von der autoritären Herrschaft bedroht.
This article discusses the objectives and challenges for corporate governance of SOEs in Russia, and provides an international perspective of the performance of SOEs as compared to privately owned companies. Recent trends in the policy and management of state property are described. The problems of corporate governance in Russia are described in an agency perspective, and survey evidence on corporate governance and transparency of Russian SOEs is provided. Particular attention is given to the legal construction of the state corporation. The final section on the performance effects of state ownership summarizes the key contributions in the international economic literature in this field.
In article results of preliminary forecasting of social and economic consequences of creation of the customs union with participation of the Russian Federation, Byelorussia and Republic Kazakhstan by means of computer economic-mathematical model of the general balance Global trade analysis project (GTAP) are resulted.
In the contemporary global context, there is no universally shared understanding of what democracy is, but democracy still functions as a universal goal. This contested universality can be conceptualized by interpreting democracy as an empty signifier, as a number of chapters in this volume do. Empty signifiers, by definition, accumulate a lot of power. However the notion of democracy has acquired even greater significance in the age of globalization. By reconfiguring the ‘demos’, the world can be both integrated (democracy as cosmopolitan/international) and disintegrated (democracy as national/sovereign). In any specific political situation democracy can be articulated at a specific point in the spectrum between the cosmopolitan and the national, but full consensus is available only around a very broad notion of democracy as the basic goal of development for all countries as well as for the entire world.
The role of universities has undergone dramatic changes. Universities no longer only host knowledge, but are now required to develop it further and to contribute to economic growth and support for e.g. companies to strengthen their competitiveness. This is of particular importance for the Russian Federation, where the last 20 years saw the dismantlement of the innovation system of the Soviet Union and ever since has been struggling to close the gap to the innovation-driven economies of Western Europe. When the Russian Federation shifted towards a market economy in the 1990s, economists, sociologists, political scientists and/or management staff educated in modern principles of management were in short supply. To alleviate the situation, the State University - the Higher School of Economics - was founded November 27, 1992 by the Russian Federation Government Decree No 736 to educate future leading professionals in the field of economics and social sciences. Currently HSE is the largest research-led institutions in the field of social and economic sciences in Eastern Europe. Spread over Four Russian cities - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Perm. Of particular interest is the Innovation Infrastructure Development Program which puts great emphasize on commercialization of research results and entrepreneurial thinking.
Intergovernmental Reforms in the Russian Federation: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? is a critical analysis of Russia’s intergovernmental reform program which began in the early 1990s. It assesses the effects of a broad range of reforms adopted over two tumultuous decades during which the Russian Federation experienced significant, and at times drastic, political regime changes, coupled with a similarly turbulent economic growth trajectory. This environment reshaped intergovernmental relations, requiring certain fiscal responsibilities to be delegated to the subnational levels. These reforms, however, were not always accompanied by the kinds of administrative and political structures required to support a truly devolved system of intergovernmental fiscal relations. As this study indicates, in recent years there has been a tendency to recentralize some powers that had been granted to subnational governments under earlier reforms—a trend that may call into question the future of fiscal decentralization in the federation. Moreover, the current global economic downturn has had a significant effect on Russia’ economic growth, largely because of the country’s overdependence on oil, gas, and mineral exports. It is likely that in the present economic climate the political regime will be inclined to further limit subnational autonomy.
This is a review of issues and problems, including cross-border disputes, arising during customs examination and sampling in the Russian Federation and the European Union. The Customs Union of the Russian Federation, Republic of Kazakhstan, and the Republic of Belarus was formed in accordance with the Agreement of 6 October 2007. This article provides some concrete examples of cross-border disputes in comparison to similar problems that have arisen in the EU, particularly in the Netherlands. Based on this review, we will conclude with some suggestions to improve the handling of cross-border disputes arising from customs examinations and sampling.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.