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.
The first volume involves the Russian Federation as a common denominator with either Norway (oldest multilateral region in the Arctic) or the United States (sharing with Russia the longest maritime boundary in the world) to interpret changes with connected biophysical and socio-economic systems that underscore decisions across a “continuum of urgencies” from security to sustainability time scales. The second and third volumes will emerge from presentations during the annual Arctic Frontiers Conferences in Tromsø, Norway, starting in January 2020. Volume 2 will consider circumstances associated with areas beyond sovereign jurisdictions from Arctic and non-Arctic perspectives, recognizing the international community has unambiguous rights and responsibilities in the Arctic High Seas under the law of the sea. Volume 3 is intended to synthesize insights on a pan-Arctic scale, analogous to the world ocean across all sea zones, involving decisions to achieve ongoing progress with sustainability, coupling governance mechanisms and built infrastructure. Throughout this book series, which we expect to expand beyond the Arctic, science diplomacy will be applied as an international, interdisciplinary, and inclusive (holistic) process, facilitating informed decisionmaking to balance national interests and common interests for the benefit of all on Earth across generations. With holistic integration, this book series will reveal skills, methods, and theory of informed decisionmaking that will continue to evolve, contributing to balance, resilience, and stability that underlie progress with sustainability across our home planet.
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.
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.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.
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.