Search

You searched for: Content Type Special Report Remove constraint Content Type: Special Report Political Geography Global Focus Remove constraint Political Geography: Global Focus Publication Year within 3 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 3 Years Publication Year within 5 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 5 Years Topic International Trade and Finance Remove constraint Topic: International Trade and Finance
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: David L. Goldwyn
  • Publication Date: 01-2017
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: Atlantic Council
  • Abstract: Oil, gas, and renewable energy markets will face high levels of uncertainty and potentially extreme volatility under a Trump administration in 2017. Some of these uncertainties flow from questions about the new administration’s yet-undefined policies on energy production, trade, and climate policy. Others flow from the basket of national security risks that a new US President was destined to inherit. Yet it is Mr. Trump’s signaling of major shifts in US foreign policy priorities that may have the greatest near-term impact on energy supply and demand. The impact of these uncertainties, following two years of reduced oil and gas investment and low energy prices, may inhibit investment and sow the seeds of a potential oil and gas price shock by 2020, if not sooner.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Post Truth Politics
  • Political Geography: America, Global Focus
  • Author: David L. Goldwyn
  • Publication Date: 01-2017
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: Atlantic Council
  • Abstract: Oil, gas, and renewable energy markets will face high levels of uncertainty and potentially extreme volatility under a Trump administration in 2017. Some of these uncertainties flow from questions about the new administration’s yet-undefined policies on energy production, trade, and climate policy. Others flow from the basket of national security risks that a new US President was destined to inherit. Yet it is Mr. Trump’s signaling of major shifts in US foreign policy priorities that may have the greatest near-term impact on energy supply and demand. The impact of these uncertainties, following two years of reduced oil and gas investment and low energy prices, may inhibit investment and sow the seeds of a potential oil and gas price shock by 2020, if not sooner.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Post Truth Politics
  • Political Geography: America, Global Focus
  • Author: Bud Coote, Karl V. Hopkins
  • Publication Date: 01-2017
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: Atlantic Council
  • Abstract: This report is a collaboration between Dentons and the Atlantic Council that provides analysis on the array of risks and uncertainties faced by international energy firms investing in and operating energy projects worldwide. It focuses on lessons learned from a variety of experiences and offers risk mitigation options.
  • Topic: Energy Policy, International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Publication Date: 03-2017
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: Asia Society
  • Abstract: OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL TRADE LANDSCAPE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AS NEVER BEFORE. A growing number of people around the world are questioning the value of trade agreements, holding them accountable for slow wage growth, rising inequalities, and job losses. Exemplified by Brexit and the U.S. presidential election, a wave of anti-globalization has washed over the world. Further, global trade is slowing, and existing trade agreements have not kept pace with the changing nature of trade itself, owing to the increasingly important role of digital and services trades. But trade has been one of the strongest drivers behind global growth and stability, particularly in Asia. In the past quarter century, the number of trade agreements in the region has increased dramati- cally. At the same time, Asian countries experienced average annual growth rates nearly 3 percent higher after liberalizing their markets.1 The region’s openness has been a critical ingredient in spurring growth, creating jobs, and lifting millions out of poverty. Trade has also helped nations develop stronger ties, giving them a greater stake in one another’s economic success and reducing the likelihood of conflict. What the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote during the eighteenth century remains as relevant in the twenty-first: “Peace is a natural effect of trade.” 2
  • Topic: International Relations, International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance, Geopolitics
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Homi Kharas
  • Publication Date: 07-2017
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: The Brookings Institution
  • Abstract: The multilateral development system, led by the United States, has guided development cooperation by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, evolving gradually through new institutions and new norms since World War II. Organized by a small group of like-minded countries, multilateralism has been a way of managing burden-sharing among donors and of delivering public goods. These functions are now under stress. According to a poll conducted in December 2016 by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, most Americans (59.3 percent) support the statement that “when giving foreign aid, it is best for the U.S. to participate in international efforts, such as through the United Nations. This way it is more likely that other countries will do their fair share and that these ef- forts will be better coordinated.” However, a majority of Republican voters disagree, believing that it is better for the U.S. to provide aid on its own, to ensure control over how money is spent and to gain recognition for its generosity.
  • Topic: International Trade and Finance, Global Political Economy
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • 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, International Affairs
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Rupert Hammond Chambers, Pek Koon Heng, Tami Overby
  • Publication Date: 10-2016
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
  • Abstract: Since its rather humble beginnings as a free trade agreement between Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand in 2005, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has ballooned into a pact that includes two of the three biggest economies in the world. Signed by the 12 founding members in February 2016, namely the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, and Malaysia as well as the four original signatories, the TPP represents nearly 40 percent of the world’s GDP. It has been described as the most ambitious multinational trade deal in history, with high standards that address issues that have not been address by trade agreements until now including environmental protection, labor rights, and addressing competition issues related to state-owned enterprises.
  • Topic: International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: J. Jackson Ewing
  • Publication Date: 09-2016
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: Asia Society
  • Abstract: FACING UP TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS A KEY CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME. We are on pace in 2016 to again record the warmest global temperatures ever measured; a distinction that now appears to be an annual occurrence. Weather is becoming less predictable, storms more intense, and drought and flooding more pervasive. This destroys livelihoods, impedes economic progress, and undermines the sustainable development gains we are working hard to achieve. Slowing down and ultimately reversing climate change requires us to lower our greenhouse gas emissions. And effectively pricing carbon emissions is a vital place to start. Pricing carbon through markets creates incentives, sets clear rules, and encourages regulated organizations to lower emissions in flexible ways that work for them. Like much in the current climate change arena, the main action on carbon markets is happening beneath the global scale. After years of chasing global mechanisms to price and trade carbon emissions credits, the landmark Paris Agreement of December 2015 both recognizes and provides political and policy space for efforts at local, state, and regional levels. The relevance of carbon markets is growing apace; almost doubling in scale since 2012 with forty states and twenty-three cities, regions, and provinces pricing emissions worth some $50 billion.
  • Topic: Climate Change, Environment, International Trade and Finance, Climate Finance
  • Political Geography: Asia, Global Focus
  • Author: Rachel Silverman, Amanda Glassman
  • Publication Date: 11-2016
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: Center for Global Development
  • Abstract: In July 2012, world leaders gathered in London to support the right of women and girls to make informed and autonomous choices about whether, when, and how many children they want to have. There, low income-country governments and donors committed to a new partnership—Family Planning 2020 (FP2020). FP2020 set an aspirational goal—120 million additional users of voluntary, high-quality family planning services by 2020—and received commitments totaling $4.6 billion in additional funding. Since then, the focus countries involved in the FP2020 partnership have made significant progress. Yet as FP2020 reaches its halfway point, and new, even more ambitious goals are set as part of the Sustainable Development Goals, gains fall short of aspirations. The midpoint of the FP2020 initiative is thus an important inflection point, offering an opportunity for family planning funders and the FP2020 partnership more broadly to take stock of progress, to reflect on the lessons of the past four years, to refine funding and accountability mechanisms, and to reallocate existing resources for greater impact. Of course, the primary responsibility for expanding contraceptive access falls squarely on country governments. Nonetheless, donor contributions play an important role. With the goal of reaching as many women and girls as possible by 2020 and an eye toward the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the Center for Global Development (CGD) convened a working group on donor alignment in family planning in fall 2015 to see how scarce donor resources could go farther to accelerate family planning gains. As the final product of the working group, the report analyzes the successes and limitations of family planning alignment to date, with a focus on procurement, cross-country and in-country resource allocation, incentives, and accountability mechanisms, and makes recommendations for next steps.
  • Topic: International Trade and Finance, Population, International Development
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Nancy Birdsall, Scott Morris
  • Publication Date: 10-2016
  • Content Type: Special Report
  • Institution: Center for Global Development
  • Abstract: The multilateral development banks (MDBs) emerged as one of the international community’s great success stories of the post–World War II era. Set up to address a market failure in long-term capital flows to post-conflict Europe and developing countries, they combined financial heft and technical knowledge for more than five decades to support their borrowing members’ investments in post-conflict reconstruction, growth stimulation, and poverty reduction. However, the geo-economic landscape has changed dramatically in this century, and with it the demands and needs of the developing world. Developing countries now make up half of the global economy. The capital market failure that originally motivated the MDBs is less acute. Almost all developing countries now rely primarily on domestic resources to manage public investment, and some of the poorest countries can borrow abroad on their own. Similarly, growth and the globalization of professional expertise on development practice have eroded whatever near-monopoly of advisory services the MDBs once had. At the same time, new challenges call for global collective action and financing of the sort the MDBs are well suited to provide but have been handicapped in doing so effectively. The list goes beyond major financial shocks, where the IMF’s role is clear—ranging from climate change, pandemic risk, increasing resistance to antibiotics, and poor management of international migration flows and of displaced and refugee populations. Other areas include the cross-border security and spillovers associated with growing competition for water and other renewable natural resources, and, with climate change, an increase in the frequency and human costs of weather and other shocks in low-income countries that are poorly equipped to respond.
  • Topic: International Trade and Finance, International Development
  • Political Geography: Global Focus