Russia: A Re-emerging Donor
Similar to the other BRICS countries (Brazil, China, India and South Africa), since 2007 Russia has been creating, or rather ‘re-creating’, an international development assistance programme and has become an active global development cooperation partner. While the Soviet Union was one of the largest donor countries in the world, Russian official development assistance, according to official government sources, increased more than eightfold in a decade, from US$100 million in 2004 to US$876 million in 2014. Russia consistently promotes cooperation for international development and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in major global governance institutions. But to what extent is Russia’s international development assistance compatible with its international cooperation strategy and domestic development priorities?This chapter attempts to respond to this question by exploring the country`s development assistance policy in detail. After a brief background on the history of Russian and Soviet international development assistance, the authors examine (1) the normative and institutional framework and (2) the sector and country/geographic foci of Russia’s international development assistance.
At this stage, it may be hypothesized that there are three major factors that influence Russia’s choice of partner countries, areas of assistance and the domestic structures of assistance delivery: the choice is driven, first, by security concerns; second, by economic interests; and third, by existing commitments in multilateral organizations.
Health is an indispensable public good. At the national level it has been manifested in the BRICS governments’ commitment to scale up health financing, though to a different degree. At the global level it is evidenced by the international community progress on the three health-related Millennium Development Goals. However despite successes in fighting infectious diseases, child and maternal mortality, old risks persist and new challenges emerge, resulting from the 2008 financial crisis, current slack economic growth and growing economic inequality. The BRICS face these challenges and have begun cooperation on health issues. It is important that they build their emerging health agenda recognizing these challenges, committing to develop sustainable policy solutions, and cooperating with other actors to promote effective health governance for change. To explore how the BRICS contribute towards global health governance the article first considers the BRICS cooperation (its institutionalization, discourse, and engagement with other international institutions) with a focus on health issues. The authors then look into the BRICS members’ national health systems, challenges and goals. The article concludes with expectations of the BRICS future health agenda and its implications for global governance.
The global economic and political landscape is undergoing profound changes as the world enters a period of rapid transformation development strategies or adjusting their existing ones with greater prominence given to the role of innovation in the leading and underpinning development to strengthen their strategic arrangements for innovation⁃driven development, in a bid to improve their international competitiveness and seize the initiative in global competition Science, technology and innovation (STI) are recognized as the golden key to the door to growth In this trend of the times, the BRICS countries are spearheading the development of developing countries and attracting international attention with their highly innovative and distinctive development strategies Meanwhile, the BRICS as a bloc has become an exemplar of STI cooperation of developing countries.
As the rotating chair of BRICS in 2017, China will host the 9th BRICS Summit in Xiamen in September In the lead⁃up to the summit, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST) hosted the 5th BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Ministerial Meeting in Hangzhou in July, where BRICS STI ministers had in⁃depth discussions and reached wide consensus on topics including STI policy, cooperation in priority areas, and co-funding for multilateral research projects The BRICS Action Plan for Innovation Cooperation and the Hangzhou Declaration
To support the work relating to BRICS STI cooperation under the Chinese presidency, China Science and Technology Exchange Center (CSTEC), as entrusted by MOST, established a High Level Expert Group of leading professionals The High⁃level Expert Group complied theBRICS Innovative Competitiveness Report 2017, in collaboration with the science and technology sections of Chinese embassies in other BRICS countries and STI think tanks in other BRICS countries Based on the latest available data, the Report of the BRICS STI cooperation, and presents country and thematic studies on the STI development of BRICS countries.
The Report consists of four parts, with a total of 12 sub⁃reports Part I two general sub⁃reports: an analysis report which evaluates and forecasts the national innovation competitiveness of BRICS countries and their STI cooperation and strategic priorities; and a research report on the priority areas BRICS STI cooperation for win⁃win results This part evaluates the comprehensive national innovative competitiveness of the BRICS countries since 2001 and forecast their innovative competitiveness in the next five years It also assesses the current status and progress of China's STI cooperation with other BRICS countries, and identifies priority areas of BRICS STI cooperation, support for BRICS countries to strengthen their national innovation competitiveness Part Ⅱ presents six country reports, which evaluate, analyze and forecast of the national innovation competitiveness of the BRICS countries and studies of their STI cooperation within the BRICS framework Part Ⅲ presents four thematic reports, which focus on the four thematic areas to STI, including digital economy, inclusive finance, energy, and agriculture, elaborate the STI development and potential of the individual BRICS countries in those areas, and provide valuable inputs for the BRICS countries' national innovation competitiveness Part IV contains appendixes, including an introduction to the related indicator system BRICS STI cooperation.
Modern capitalism favors values that undermine our face-to-face bonds with friends and family members. Focusing on the post-communist world, and comparing it to more 'developed' societies, this book reveals the mixed effects of capitalist culture on interpersonal relationships. While most observers blame the egoism and asocial behavior found in new free-market societies on their communist pasts, this work shows how relationships are also threatened by the profit orientations and personal ambition unleashed by economic development. Successful people in societies as diverse as China, Russia, and Eastern Germany adjust to the market economy at a social cost, relaxing their morals in order to obtain success and succumbing to increased material temptations to exploit relationships for their own financial and professional gain. The capitalist personality is internally troubled as a result of this "sellout," but these qualms subside as it devalues intimate qualitative bonds with others. This book also shows that post-communists are similarly individualized as people living in Western societies. Capitalism may indeed favor values of independence, creativity, and self-expressiveness, but it also rewards self-centeredness, consumerism, and the stripping down of morality. As is the case in the West, capitalist culture fosters an internally conflicted and self-centered personality in post-communist societies.
In this paper the public-private wage gap is estimated by means both of the OLS and the quantile regression, which will provide a more complex picture of the distribution of the public-private sector wage gap. The author finds the existence of significant public-private wage gap (about 30%) considering both observable and unobservable characteristics of workers and jobs. Using the decomposition based on quantile regression helps to answer the question about the nature of the wage differences. The author comes to the conclusion that the main reason for the gap is the institutional mechanisms of public sector wages in Russia. The analysis is based on the data from Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS-HSE) 2000-2010.
In his article Vladimir Kantor explores the destiny of Russia intelligentsia within the context of cultural crisis that took place at the turn of XIX and XX centuries, analyzing the Vekhovs, a group of leading intellectuals who ran a collection of essays, titled "Vekhi", studying their relationship towards that Russian cultural phenomenon. To author, the intelligentsia is considered as a critical factor in the development of Russian history. Within a context of the struggle around the "Vekhi", by referring to famous philosophical and literature books, published in 1909, the author focuses on relationships between intelligentsia and ordinary people, their attractive and repulsive interaction, which represents the key theme of the Russian destiny. Any historical movement occurs through tragedy; heroes who move the history have to sacrifice themselves to provide that movement. Confirmation to that idea would be rejection and exclusion of the Russian intelligentsia from the country's mentality throughout a number of generations which ultimately led to its tragic being.
The main focus of this paper is the relation between the realisation of the right of the child to express his/her views and democracy in Russia. With this in view, I will study the interconnection between the right to express the views and the right to participate. Further, I will give an overview of the specifics of democracy in Russia, how they influence political participation, and what could be done to prevent the further infantilisation of citizens in Russia. Finally, I will explore traditional perceptions with regard to children’s participation in Russia and the legal framework and practice of the implementation of the child’s right to social and political participation.
UK corporate tax reform, corporate tax in Russia and tax relief system were considered and described in the article. Also it was made an attempt to apply UK experience of innovative activity encouragement through corporate tax regulation to Russian economy.