Большой Север: от геополитического «невроза» и силовых разборок к геоэкономическому конструктиву (глобальная геоэкономическая инициатива - структурированная форма научного, просветительного и образовательного блоков)
Throughout the twentieth century, glaciologists and geophysicists from Denmark, Norway andSweden made important scientific contributions across the Arctic and Antarctic. This research was of acute security and policy interest during the Cold War, as knowledge of the polar regions assumed military importance. But scientists also helped make the polar regionsNordic spaces in a cultural and political sense, with scientists from Norden punching far above their weight in terms of population, geographical size or economic activity. This volume presents an image of Norden that stretches far beyond its conventional limits,covering a vast area in the North Atlantic and the Arctic Sea, as well as parts of Antarctica. Rich in resources, scarce in population, but critically important in global and regional geopolitics, these spaces were contested by major powers such as Russia, the United States, Canada and, in the Antarctic, Argentina, Australia, South Africa and others. The empirical focus on Danish, Norwegian and Swedish influence in the polar regions during the twentieth century embraces a diverse array of themes, from the role of science in policy and diplomacy to the tensions between nationalism and internationalism, with clear relevance to the important role science plays in contemporary discussions about Nordic engagement with the polar regions.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.
Nowadays the problem of competitiveness of Russian economy, the state and opportunities of itsexport potential is brought to the fore. But talking about it we should first of all define the methods of development of Russia's export potential, in other words, to answer the question: what is the paradigm that founds the country's international economic policy and strategy, the paradigm that reveals new horizons of geo-economic space development and higher export potential of Russian companies? Such a paradigm is the system of geo-economic views.
In early 2010 Russia once again entered a turbulent period. From the system of property distribution, to structure of the political elites and relations between the Center and the regions - various spheres of Russian life are in a state of flux. Two major factors are driving this change: oil prices which are unlikely to grow the way they did in the 2000s and the rapidly deteriorating efficiency of governance. Relations between federal and regional elites, as well as public activism, are derived from these two factors and play an important role of their own. Will change take an evolutionary path or is Russia facing another revolution? The book offers a view of the Russian future until 2025 based on thematic scenarios created by an international team of Russia scholars whose expertise range from politics and economics to demographics and foreign policy.
This chapter is a first attempt to study the development of different kind of field stations in the western sector of the Russian Arctic in theperiod from the First to Second International Polar Years (1882 - 1933). As more or less independent entities, marine biological and polar meteorological stations were on different sides of the process but were interconnected through the people involved and the filed research practices implemented.Three major concerns influenced the development of field studies in the Russian Arctic – navigation, demands for the efficient use of natural resources and the political–military strategy of keeping land and their surrounding seas under Soviet control. Stations gradually moved further north from the sub-Arctic to the Arctic islands.The scientific network in the Arctic was initially established through the confrontation between interrelated sites of knowledge – field stations and research vessels – before their merger and placement in the same centralized network, which subsequently became very efficient with the introduction of aviation. The stations were not just crucial places for knowledge production but also places for the transfer of scientific, primarily tacit, knowledge about observations and laboratory analysis. They also maintained a specific culture of field sciences. By the time of the Second IPY in the Soviet Arctic, a distinct shift could be seen from broad international cooperation to a centralized national network and from scientific, educational and local economic objectives to military, geopolitical and broader economic interests.
The post-Cold War Arctic has seen a transformation from military tension and a focus on national security to a concern for environmental and human security. As a result of this, the globalized Arctic has a high level of peace and stability, maintained by international cooperation between the Arctic states, northern indigenous peoples, sub-national governments and local actors. There has also been a shift from environmental protection to economic activities and, consequently, states easily trump other interests. Now, in the Arctic, these challenges require fresh thinking on a local and global scale. Regional wars, the 'war on terror', and economic crises have posed new threats to Northern security order.
This article accounts for the revival of geopolitics in Russian post-Soviet foreign policy thinking and also for the fact that geopolitics-inspired foreign policy prescriptions had relatively little impact on the actual conduct of Russian foreign policy. It is argued that classical geopolitics was revived in Russia in order to objectively present the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a crisis. The crisis, in turn, was constructed using a number of themes first articulated by classical Eurasians, namely ideology, modernisation and Russia's distinctiveness. However, geopolitical thinking had little practical relevance because the solution to the crisis was eventually conceptualized in non-geopolitical terms.