Number of results to display per page
Search Results
232. Trump and the IMF
- Author:
- Susan Schadler
- Publication Date:
- 10-2017
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Centre for International Governance Innovation
- Abstract:
- So far, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has defied the odds in its relations with the administration of US President Donald Trump. In contrast to the administration’s at times stormy ride with some other international organizations and agreements, relations have been rather calm — even friendly — between the United States and the IMF. There has been no talk of cutting US funding to the IMF, no threat of pulling out of the organization, no statements casting aspersions on the IMF and no “tweet storms” on specific events involving the IMF. In fact, although not directly from President Trump, statements in support of actions or positions of the IMF have surfaced. Why has the IMF escaped the antagonism of the new administration, and can it continue to do so?
- Topic:
- International Political Economy and International Trade and Finance
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
233. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Chinese influence in the Western Balkans
- Author:
- Alexandr Lagazzi and Michal Vít
- Publication Date:
- 10-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Europeum Institute for European Policy
- Abstract:
- With the past export-led economic growth that has gradually become a tool of Chinese soft power, China showcased globally a powerful and inviting policy of economic power in action, and investment-seeking countries (especially from the Western Balkans) are willing to show their eagerness towards Chinese loans and capital. On the reverse side, China presents itself as an equally eager investor, and can be counted on in all situations, including when Chinese investors picked up projects declined by the EU.
- Topic:
- International Trade and Finance
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
234. The Georgia-NATO Strategic Partnership and Regional Security – The Wales and Warsaw NATO Summits
- Author:
- Vakhtang Maisaia
- Publication Date:
- 11-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
- Abstract:
- he NATO Wales and Warsaw Summits held in 2014 and in 2016, were historic events due to the complex processes associated with them. The Summits have generated much discussion and are comprised of decisive issues and decisions. In the last Warsaw Summit, up to ten documents were adopted, including the final communique, which was for the first time quite “thick” for and more detailed, compared to previously adopted documents (about 139 items). For the first time in the last few decades, the European Union and NATO came to a consensus and adopted a common declaration, where they expressed their united position on common problems within the frameworks of Transatlantic security, and agreed on plans for further strategic cooperation (EU-NATO Joint Declaration 2016). Most importantly, the representatives of both organisations declared a common approach toward threats emanating from the East and South (i.e. Russia and ISIS). At this stage, the Alliance identi ed three geostrategic special regions for more active operations in the context of strategic defence and deterrence. ose regions became the main issue of the summit: the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea. NATO must boost its support for the Southern ank via crisis management capabilities and strengthened partnerships (Lorenz “NATO at a Critical Crossroads”, 11). In general, NATO has returned to a collective defence strategy. is is a new game where the South Caucasus is becoming a “red frontier” line between the main actors: NATO and Russia. It seems that the priorities of NATO and Russia in the region are evolving within the framework of the so-called “security dilemma”, where both parties are trying to build up their military capabilities and tools of political pressure on the countries of the region, competing with each other in various geostrategic dimensions. is includes intensive NATO military exercises in Georgia and implementation of the Comprehensive Assistance Package, as well as strengthening military potential in the territories of occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia, not to mention the establishment of a joint air defence system with Armenia, and strengthening the Caspian Flotilla by Russia.
- Topic:
- NATO, International Trade and Finance, and International Affairs
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
235. The Role of IPAs in Advancing Sustainable Development
- Author:
- Columbia Centre on Sustainable Investment
- Publication Date:
- 11-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
- Abstract:
- Every year the World Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (WAIPA) surveys its members. This survey, conducted in 2017, polled over 90 agencies on numerous aspect
- Topic:
- International Political Economy and International Trade and Finance
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
236. How Anonymous Shell Companies Finance Insurgents, Criminals, and Dictators
- Author:
- Jodi Vittori
- Publication Date:
- 09-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- The Panama Papers leak of eleven million documents in April 2016 revealed that former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the brother-in-law of Chinese President Xi Jinping, longtime friends of Russian President Vladimir Putin, drug kingpins, and even a soccer megastar had something in common: they all channeled money through anonymous shell companies. Anonymous shell companies are entities that usually employ few or no workers, do not conduct any substantive business, and allow their owners to store or route money while hiding their identities. Because of the secrecy they can provide, anonymous companies represent an important nexus of corruption, money laundering, transnational organized crime, and terrorism, which directly harm U.S. interests. As one of the main facilitators of anonymous companies, the United States should pass legislation to disclose ownership information for all companies, increase federal contract transparency, and boost other business and government transparency mechanisms at home and abroad. Doing so would significantly cut back on the ability of terrorists, criminals, and their ilk to use American corporations, real estate, and trusts to finance activities that harm the United States and its foreign interests.
- Topic:
- Corruption, International Trade and Finance, Transparency, and Panama Papers
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
237. What the Trump Administration’s NAFTA Priorities Get Right (and Wrong) About Digital Trade
- Author:
- Anupam Chander
- Publication Date:
- 09-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Digital commerce and trade are increasingly important to the global economy. Seven of the ten most valuable firms today are technology companies (Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Alibaba, and Tencent). Data, according to some analysts, is the new oil. A major study concluded that the internet has powered some one-fifth of recent economic growth within the leading economies. Jobs are increasingly dependent on digitization; digital skills are needed for all but two job categories [PDF] in the United States: dishwashing and food cooking. Just as national economies are becoming more digitized, barriers to digital trade are being erected. These barriers limit opportunities for consumers to access global providers and for small- and medium-sized enterprises to reach new customers. It is not only technology firms that suffer; all enterprises with international operations need cross-border data flows to process, analyze, and transfer data about employees, customers, and operations. Global supply chains depend on the flow of goods, data, and services across borders. Moreover, commitment to the free flow of information across borders is essential to freedom of expression. Digital trade is about more than access to markets; it is about access to information. The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an excellent opportunity to set the gold standard for digital free trade. Despite public pronouncements about the harm free trade causes to the steel and automobile industries, the Donald J. Trump administration, to its credit, recognizes the importance of removing digital trade barriers in its stated objectives for the NAFTA renegotiation [PDF]. In its negotiations with Canada and Mexico, the Trump administration should seek rules limiting data localization, promote a balanced approach to intellectual property protections, support cross-border privacy rules, and remove barriers that hinder the trade of services.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Digital Economy, and NAFTA
- Political Geography:
- United States, Canada, North America, and Mexico
238. Writing New Rules for the U.S.-China Investment Relationship
- Author:
- Jennifer M. Harris
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Chinese outbound investment is on the rise, and much of it is finding its way into the United States. Be- tween 2010 and 2015, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to the United States grew by an average of 32 percent annually.1 Within the past two years alone, Chinese foreign investment inflows to the United States increased four-fold, and available data suggests 2017 will see the second highest annual investment on record, after 2016.2 This is not a two-way street: the United States and other foreign investors do not enjoy similar open market access in China. China maintains a dizzying assortment of formal and informal barriers to for- eign investment—from outright restrictions and quotas to mandatory joint ventures, forced localization measures, and domestic licensing regimes. Despite years of negotiations, these barriers are, if anything, growing more cumbersome in many sectors. U.S. firms paint a darkening picture of the business climate they face in China. U.S. FDI in China has slowed considerably in recent years: after growing roughly 180 percent from 2002 to 2007 (albeit from a low baseline), U.S. FDI flows into China have declined since 2012.3 The one-way surge of Chinese investment into the United States comes against a backdrop of strategic mistrust between Washington and Beijing. Ongoing accusations of state-sponsored cyber predation of U.S. firms, Beijing’s increasing aggressiveness over territorial disputes, its systematic efforts to under- mine the U.S. alliance system in Asia, and mounting tensions over North Korea all contribute to a dark- ening mood in the U.S.-China relationship. And, like so much involving China, this investment is simply different. Rarely, if ever, has the United States seen an increase in investment of this magnitude—espe- cially from a non-ally and especially from one where the lines between state ownership and private own- ership are so inherently blurred. For all the concern surrounding Japanese investment in the United States in the 1980s—coming as it did amid fierce economic competition—those debates ultimately re- mained under the umbrella of the U.S.-Japan military alliance. All of this raises questions about whether the United States needs to tighten its stance on Chinese in- bound investment; proposals to that effect have bipartisan support in the Congress. The Donald J. Trump administration has signaled its desire for a tougher approach in its economic dealings with China, which U.S. businesses seem to welcome. One foundation for such an approach is the principle of reciprocity. Roughly two dozen sectors in China—construction, mining, banking, insurance, and so on—remain effectively off-limits to American investment, because the Chinese government protects its domestic companies through regulations and financial subsidies. Even in sectors that technically allow foreign investment, discriminatory industrial policies tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese firms. Until this changes, Washington would be justi- fied—even obligated—to limit Chinese investment in the U.S. market. However, U.S. policymakers do not have a consensus on what a policy of reciprocity would entail, and different policy interpretations could spell quite different economic and foreign policy consequences for the United States. The United States should aim for a version of reciprocity that allows it the flexibility to maximize pressure on the broad range of Chinese industrial policy concerns while leaving a clear route to negotiations. The United States should also encourage European and other Western countries, many of which are seeing similar increases in Chinese investment, to adopt this new approach.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Foreign Direct Investment
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, and North America
239. A Tightening Balancing Act: Economic Implications of Zambia's Balance of Payments Performance
- Author:
- Caesar Cheelo and Thulani Banda
- Publication Date:
- 06-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR)
- Abstract:
- International trade and investment are primary drivers of globalization, international trade and development. In 2014, Zambia’s trade openness – in terms of total monetary flows on all export and import transactions combined – was estimated at 79.6% of GDP while the total (cumulative) stock on inward FDI was 66.5% of GDP. The recent economic headwinds in Zambia and abroad motivated this review of the country’s external position relative to the rest of the world. This paper highlights the changes in the balance of payments (BOP), a key tool for monitoring Zambia’s economic performance vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The balance of payments shows the Zambia’s financial transactions with other countries in the world, recoding the flows of money into and out of the economy through a number of payments accounts. Checking the economy’s balance of payments position offers useful insights about its external sector’s health. In a sense, the monetary flows through the balance of payments reflect Zambia’s net dependency on the rest of the world. The context of the analysis in the paper is the economic malaise of 2015. The paper thus demonstrates that the economic debacle of 2015 is not an unfamiliar experience for Zambia. It draws on the country’s economic recent history, identifying parallels between the past and the present. It seeks to offer guidance to policy-makers, towards fostering foster effective and reliable responses to the external balance challenges. Particularly, the paper analyses the fundamental elements of Zambia’s balance of payments, describing their recent behaviour and highlighting some of the main drivers of imbalances in the different payments accounts. It recommends measures for correcting some of the imbalance in the balance of payments, seeking to contribute to the improvement of the external sector’s performance.
- Topic:
- Economics, International Trade and Finance, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- Africa and Zambia
240. Globalization
- Publication Date:
- 01-2016
- Content Type:
- Course Pack
- Institution:
- Columbia International Affairs Online
- Abstract:
- Globalization is a framework for describing many affiliated worldwide developments. Globalization isn't simply more of the ongoing process of internationalization; rather it describes the increasing ease with which technologies, people, goods, services and capital move transnationally. But the term is also widely used to convey such elements as universalization and changes to sovereignty. While many embrace it, others fear it. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has suggested that opposition to globalization could have the effect of reversing progress on free trade. The International Forum on Globalization is one organization that seeks to reverse globalization. The readings in this course pack focus on the many facets of globalization.
- Topic:
- Economics, Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Political Economy, and International Affairs
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus