Economic growth in developing economies and the transition of large population groups to the middle class lead to a surge in energy consumption and hence in greenhouse gas emissions. The solution to such issues as poverty and inequality comes therefore into conflict with climate change mitigation. The existing international climate change regime does not address this contradiction. The existing international system of climate regulation does not address this contradiction. Today, the global climate governance relies on the estimates of aggregate emissions of countries not considering the level of development and the distribution of emissions among income groups within each country. Emissions from production are being monitored, while consumption-related emissions, albeit known be experts, rarely underlie decision-making. Meanwhile, income distribution has a higher impact on consumption-based emissions in comparison to the production-based ones. Decisions on the emission regulation are made at the national level by countries with different development agendas where the climate change mitigation often gets less priority in comparison to other socio-economic objectives.
The paper proposes a set of principles and specific mechanisms that can link both climate change and inequality within a single policy framework. Firstly, we highlight the importance of modification of the global emission monitoring system for the sake of accounting for emissions from consumption (rather than production) by income groups. Secondly, we suggest the introduction of a new redistribution system to address climate change including a "fine" imposed on households with the highest levels of emissions. Such a system follows the principles of progressive taxation but underlies climate mitigation objectives and can rather be treated not as taxation of high incomes but as payment for negative externality. Thirdly, we outline the need for adjustment of climate finance criteria: priority should be given to projects aimed at 1) reducing the carbon intensity of consumption of the social groups entering the middle class, and 2) at adaptation of the poorest population groups to the climate change. The special role in the implementation of these principles may belong to BRICS countries which could use it as a chance for proactive transition to the inclusive low-carbon development.
This article conceptualizes ongoing efforts to develop the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), initiated by Russia,
Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2011. Engaging with two major theoretical perspectives, it establishes to what extent the EEU’s
construction and potential expansion is economic regionalism (interpreted also as an isolationist strategy) driven by Russialed
geopolitical motives. The political-economy debate of Eurasia goes beyond a common tariff area and a common market
within the territory of the former USSR. Increasingly, it involves the establishment of a common monetary area. China’s
Silk Road Economic Belt is building a foundation for a new Eurasia – one of the global economic and political players of
this century. The economic reasons pursued by Russia in its Eurasian initiative are inseparable from economic problems
of geopolitical significance. The overarching objective of Russian policy is to establish a regional economic fusion, with
significant economic sovereignty and strong political influence; that is, to become the new centre of power in the global
economy of the 21st century. Correspondingly, although Russian integration policy in Eurasia has not been formulated in
an anti-American way, if it is successful the likely consequence will be the withdrawal of a significant segment of the global
market from the economic dominance and political influence of western-led economic blocs.
The article substantiates/justifies the necessity of reform of the major institution of global economic governance, the World Trade Organization. A number of the accumulated crucial problems of the existing multilateral trading system, the MTS, is explored: the problem of development and efficiency of the WTO in the new environment, weakening of the leading role of the US, regionalism, crisis of the decision-making system in the WTO and the recent rise of trade protectionism. All these challenges in sum point to the necessity of WTO reform, the latter two being particularly pressing, since they eventually moved the issue from the realm of scientific discussions into the realm of practical initiatives. The author analyzes the first steps of the WTO members towards the organization’s reform taken in 2018, focusing on the EU Concept Paper on WTO modernization, which was the first such initiative among other countries. An emphasis is given to the pivotal role of the positions of the US and China since without these actors it is hardly possible to successfully continue the process of WTO reform. The controversial position of the US, formed largely under the influence of the current isolationist and protectionist trade policy of the Trump Administration, is given an in-depth analysis. The author comes to the preliminary conclusion that the process of WTO reform is bound to be extremely complicated and may take years.
The review covers OECD report “The Productivity-Inclusiveness Nexus”. Modest global economic growth is closely related to lagging labour productivity caused by growing barriers experienced by economic agents in accessing markets and resources. The key massage of the report is a call for changing the economic growth model to more inclusive productivity growth that enables people invest on the skills and provides an environment where all firms have a fair chance to succeed. Inclusive economic growth model primary aims at improved living standards and opportunities for all parts of society, especially low income. This aim implies implementation of the package of structural transformations, the key idea of which is that acceleration in productivity growth should be supplemented by reduction of income inequality and ensuring that all individuals are equipped to fulfilling their productive potential.
The article analyses the RF policy in innovation development and reasons for Russia's lagging behind most leading and developing countries. The authors explore special features of RF scientific and technological complex and provide a comparative analysis of science and innovation sector efficiency in different countries, including Russia. Special attention is given to opportunities for Russia's international cooperation in science and innovation sector. Barriers for this cooperation have been analysed. In conclusion the authors made recommendations on improving effectiveness of the Russian innovation system. The publication is prepared within the framework of a joint project of Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Project and International Organisations Research Institute of the NRU HSE "Enhancing Effectiveness of Russia's Participation in G8, G20 and BRICS in accordance with Russian Priorities and National Interests" in 2011.
The article presents the outcomes of the survey on innovative activities of international staff members of the National Research University Higher School of Economics. Both international staff members and the heads of university’s departments took part in on-line survey. The survey helps identify the trends in innovative activities of the international staff and attempts to assess their contribution to the university’s development. The article concludes with recommendations on stimulating employees’ innovative and creative activities.
The level of analysis concept is an excellent tool for studying the evolution of international relations. This article focuses on the institutional approach of three levels of interaction: the intergovernmental level (IGL) describes traditional contacts among heads of states or governments as well as among ministers; the transgovernmental level (TGL) consists of relations among civil servants of middle and low rank; and the transnational level (TNL) includes the dialogue of non-governmental participants such as business, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and epistemic communities. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye identified TGL and TNL, but the studies of these levels has intensified as a result of burgeoning links among civil servants, business, NGOs and experts from different countries. Transgovernmental and transnational interactions stabilize relations among various actors. This article clarifies the stabilizing potential of TGL and TNL interactions. First, the degree of autonomy of civil servants from the political level of government has to be taken into account. Second, the state regulates the level of independence of both business and NGOs. TGL and TNL interactions can stabilize relations only if civil servants are independent from the political level in what concerns technical issues and where both business and civil society are strong. Third, real economic interdependence matters because it forms an agenda of cooperation in a particular field. The intensification of trade and investment flows does not automatically lead to real interdependence. In this case, contacts at the transgovernmental and transnational levels acquire a formal character and no cooperation emerges, which does not allow for stabilized relations in crisis situations at the IGL. The empirical section of the article demonstrates how widening and deepening relations between the European Union and Russia, especially since 2000, led to thickening transgovernmental and transnational interactions but these levels failed to stabilize relations between Moscow and Brussels following the 2014 Ukrainian crisis. On the contrary, the EU’ s reaction (sanctions) led to the destruction of economic links at both levels, whereas Russia deconstructed transnational non-profit relations. Tensions at the IGL also negatively affected the epistemic community (a part of the TNL), leading to its politicization. Changes and fine-tunings in the concept of institutional levels of analysis, suggested in the article, help to explain recent developments in EU – Russian relations. The article also recommends purposefully restoring relations at the transgovernmental and transnational levels to facilitate overcoming of the crisis in EU – Russian relations.
The report turns to the assessment and complex analysis of the G20 member-states compliance to the commitments on development assistance taken at London G20 summit in April 2009. The monitoring has embraced two commitments on international development assistance and covered a period from April to September 2009. Findings from the monitoring could be helpful to understand the role of the G8 member-states and other members of the G20, which are not the G8 members, in promoting international development assistance. The report overviews the activities taken by the Russian Federation along with other G20 member states to support international development assistance, evaluates its effectiveness and success.