The article analyzes the specifics of urbanization dynamics in Egypt, which is noteworthy for a number of reasons. First, there was a shift from the logistic trend in the 1970s, and the share of urban population stopped growing. The UN data analysis shows that such a shift usually occurs against the background of very serious economic difficulties (and other problems associated with them). However, the urban population proportion stopped growing in Egypt when the country was experiencing a period of exceedingly rapid economic growth. We find labor migration of unprecedented scale to be the main reason which engendered this seemingly paradoxical situation. We further proceed to analyze the UN forecast on the dynamics of the Egyptian urban population proportion up to 2050, which implies a return to the logistic trend and rapid growth of the urban population share, which is fraught with socio-political instability risks. However, we present data proving that the logistic urbanization trajectory is not inevitable for Egypt, and the destabilization risks connected with the rapid increase of urban population share are largely irrelevant to Egypt in the forecasted period.
The collection consists of a number of refereed essays, representing the mainstream of the Chinese economic thought and the Western sinology nowadays. It covers various fields of China’s socio-economic transformation. Specific features of macroeconomic dynamics in China are studied in depth. Special attention is dedicated to the intermediate results of structural reforms. China’s external economic expansion is also covered in its various dimensions. The materials refereed may be of an interest for those dealing with the issues of economies in transition and thinking how to apply the successful elements of China’s experiencе in the Russian circumstances.
The modern concept of modernizing Russia somehow reproduce the history of the theory of innovation. The theory of innovation in its development has gone through a least 3 stages. In the first phase (1910 - first half of the 40s) to the forefront issues of understanding the nature of innovation and their role in the development of society over time (long, medium and short periods), the relationship of innovation and long cycles conditions. This period is associated with the names of J.A.Schumpeter, M.I.Tugan-Baranovsky and N.D. Kondratieff. The second stage in the development of innovation theory (second half 1940 - first half of the 1970s) is characterized by the increased role of macroeconomic analysis, in turn, he has at least two substages: the first of which was dominated by the ideas of neo-Keynesians, on the second-neoclassical. The third stage of development of the theory of innovation began in the mid-1970s and proldolzhaetsya to the present. It is characterized by an offensive alternative approach to macroeconomic theory. With a certain degree of conditionality is also possible to distinguish two substages. The first (second half of the 1970s - early 1990s) is characterized by the emergence of new ideas drawn from evolutionary theory, institutionalism (the theory of the firm) and management (innovation management). In the second substage (mid 90s) innovations studied by the methods of systems analysis. The authors are increasingly focused on issues of comparative studies: a comparative analysis of innovation policy in different countries, study the ways and means of forming an effective innovation systems. In the report it is critically considered not only the official point of view, but also M. Porter, K. Ketels work “Competitiveness at the Crossroads: Choosing the Future Direction of the Russian Economy”. Also «The forecast of innovative, technological and structural dynamics of Russian economy till 2030» and RAND Corporation report “The Global Technology Revolution 2020: Trends, Drivers, Barriers, and Social Implications” are analyzed. In this paper institutional preconditions and possibilities of application of the concept of social market economy in the 21st century Russia were analyzed. Basic elements of social market economy are personal liberty, social justice, and economic efficiency.
Institutions affect investment decisions, including investments in human capital. Hence institutions are relevant for the allocation of talent. Good market-supporting institutions attract talent to productive value-creating activities, whereas poor ones raise the appeal of rent-seeking. We propose a theoretical model that predicts that more talented individuals are particularly sensitive in their career choices to the quality of institutions, and test these predictions on a sample of around 95 countries of the world. We find a strong positive association between the quality of institutions and graduation of college and university students in science, and an even stronger negative correlation with graduation in law. Our findings are robust to various specifications of empirical models, including smaller samples of former colonies and transition countries. The quality of human capital makes the distinction between educational choices under strong and weak institutions particularly sharp. We show that the allocation of talent is an important link between institutions and growth.
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.