Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 3 Years

9891. Despite Political Tension, Americans and Russians See Cooperation as Essential

Author:
Dina Smeltz, Brendan Helm, Denis Volkov, and Stepan Goncharov
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
A joint Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center survey shows few Russians or Americans expect great changes to US-Russia ties now or in the next 10 years, although both publics see the merits of collaboration. According to a January–February 2021 joint survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center in Moscow, neither Russians nor Americans expect the new US administration to prompt a reset in bilateral relations. While many Russians have yet to form an opinion of US President Joseph Biden, few in either country expect great changes to US-Russia ties now or even in the next 10 years. Despite this anticipated stasis, both publics acknowledge the importance of bilateral cooperation on a number of long-term foreign policy issues.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Public Opinion, and Survey
Political Geography:
Russia, North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

9892. Economic Assessment of the Euro Area: Winter 2020/2021

Author:
Klaus-Jurgen Gern
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
This EUROFRAME Report presents an assess- ment of the economic outlook for 2021 focuses on the euro area based on a synopsis of the fore- casts of EUROFRAME institutes. Perspectives for UK and CEEs countries are described in Boxes A and B, respectively. In the Focus section, we discuss a special topic, based on work done in the EUROFRAME insti- tutes. This time, we discuss the impact that the COVID-19 crisis had on labour markets in Eu- rope and policy responses to this challenge, based on the experience in the countries hosting EUROFRAME institutes.
Topic:
Economics, Regional Cooperation, European Union, Regionalism, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe

9893. World economy in spring 2021: Recovery stays on track

Author:
Klaus-Jurgen Gern, Philipp Hauber, Stefan Kooths, and Ulrich Stolzenburg
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
The global economy continued to recover in the winter semester, despite the number of new infections with the coronavirus rising sharply and containment measures tightened again in many countries. Industrial production and world trade have already fully catched up with activity levels before the pandemic and appear to be little affected by the second wave of Covid-19. While the European economy did slip into recession again, the decline in GDP is not expected to be dramatic and should be followed by a strong recovery from spring onward, provided that progress in vaccination allows a substantial and sustained relaxation of measures designed to suppress the virus. In the course of this year, the global upturn will thus increasingly extend to economic sectors that remain severely impeded for the time being, such as tourism and entertainment, and to economies that are particularly geared to these activities. On a purchasing power parity basis, global output is expected to increase by 6.7 percent in 2021 and by 4.7 percent in 2022, thus progressively closing the gap to the pre-crisis path of activity towards the end of the forecast period. We have raised our December forecast by 0.6 percent for both this year and next, with a particularly strong improvement in the outlook for the United States. World trade in goods is expected to grow by 7.5 percent this year. With growth of 4.7 percent this year and next, respectively, Towards the end of the forecast horizon world trade will thus be even higher than expected before the crisis.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Forecast, Economic Growth, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9894. A CO2-Border Adjustment Mechanism as a Building Block of a Climate Club

Author:
Felix Bierbrauer, Gabriel Felbermayr, Axel Ockenfels, Klaus M. Schmidt, and Jens Sudekum
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
The EU steps up its efforts to curb its territorial CO2-emissions. It is planning to introduce a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to level the playing field and to raise own resources. The authors point out that unilateral European climate policy action, whether shored up with a CBAM or not, can only play a limited role in reducing global CO2-emissions. A EU-CBAM cannot stop indirect leakage, it has ambiguous effects on other countries’ mitigation efforts, and it poses the risk of conflicts with trade partners. They propose that the EU, together with the US and other like-minded countries, should push hard to establish a climate club with a common minimum price of CO2 and a common CBAM applied to third countries. Such a framework would incentivize other countries to join while limiting leakage and reducing the risk of trade policy disputes.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Europe

9895. Trade and the Spatial Distribution of Transport Infrastructure

Author:
Gabriel Felbermayr and Alexander Tarasov
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
The distribution of transport infrastructure across space is the outcome of deliberate government planning that reflects a desire to unlock the welfare gains from regional economic integration. Yet, despite being one of the oldest government activities, the economic forces shaping the endogenous emergence of infrastructure have not been rigorously studied. This paper provides a stylized analytical framework of open economies in which planners decide non-cooperatively on transport infrastructure investments across continuous space. Allowing for intra- and international trade, the resulting equilibrium investment schedule features underinvestment that turns out particularly severe in border regions and that is amplified by the presence of discrete border costs. In European data, the mechanism explains about 16% of the border effect identified in a conventionally specified gravity regression.
Topic:
Economics, Infrastructure, Governance, Borders, and Trade
Political Geography:
Global Focus

9896. US, Japan, and South Korea Coordination Key to Competing in Southeast Asia

Author:
Karl Friedhoff and Lea Chang
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
In picking fronts that offer the paths of least resistance, trilateral cooperation will maximize the presence of all three countries in ASEAN, maintaining balance in the region and making collective progress toward economic and development goals. Despite its size, economic dynamism, and geographic position, Southeast Asia has received comparatively little attention in US foreign policy. Even as American policy becomes more focused on China, the United States lacks a coordinated strategy to respond to and compete with China’s vast trade and investment in Southeast Asia. But most ASEAN countries are wary of China’s growing influence and would be open to US involvement as they look to diversify. To take advantage of this opportunity, the United States must supplement its focus on the South China Sea with diplomatic and financial efforts on land. These efforts should offer an alternative to China’s largesse but should not seek a direct competition in hard infrastructure or in terms of dollar amounts invested. Nor should the United States go it alone. Instead, it should seek to cooperate with its allies—Japan and South Korea in particular—to pursue their respective competitive advantages. These include identifying and investing in small- and medium-sized enterprises in ASEAN, developing human capital in the region, and conducting joint maritime cleanup activities in coordination with ASEAN countries. Creating coordinated activities with Japan and South Korea in Southeast Asia should be the first step for the United States to roll back China’s influence in the region. But these efforts will need to be calibrated to ensure that they focus on the needs of countries in the region and not just engulf the region in the US-China competition.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Infrastructure, Investment, and Trade
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

9897. Treaty Allies Matter for US Foreign Policy Experts—but They Are Not Indispensable

Author:
Sibel Oktay, Paul Poast, Dina Smeltz, and Craig Kafura
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
The Council's polling experts examine how American foreign policy experts think of the term "allies," and whether variations in thinking matter for US foreign policy decisions. “America is back,” President Joseph Biden pronounced at the State Department in February 2021. His comment ostensibly meant the United States was returning to the international fold after leaving a global leadership void during the Trump years. The previous administration had downplayed—even discounted—American alliances as key US foreign policy tools. “We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s,” Biden stated. At the NATO summit four months later, Biden reiterated his administration’s key message and commitment to the alliance. Emblematic of this commitment, he and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also signed a “New Atlantic Charter” recommitting both nations to their “alliances and partners.” The United States is unique in the world in terms of security alliances. The country enjoys “the largest and most enduring military footprint” in recent history. From military bases to providing training and material assistance, this footprint is largely enabled through allies. Hence, it is perhaps unsurprising that recent surveys show a perception among Americans that alliances largely benefit the United States. But what is meant by the term “allies”? Given the variety of military partnerships and relationships maintained by the United States, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the term “ally” is used to describe countries across this range of relationships. Some countries have a formal defensive treaty with the United States, while others are merely recipients of US military financial aid. How do American foreign policy experts think of the term “allies,” and does variation in such thinking matter?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, Partnerships, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

9898. Americans, Japanese, and South Koreans Wary of China's Intentions

Author:
Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura, and Dina Smeltz
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
American, Japanese, and South Korean publics see China as a more of a threat than a partner. Trilateral cooperation will be key to managing China's rise. Against a backdrop of growing regional rivalry, March and April 2021 surveys conducted in the United States, Japan, and South Korea show that publics in all three countries share similar views of China’s growing influence and intentions. But the data also show that internal divisions within the US-Japan-South Korea relationship will pose challenges to deeper cooperation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, and Public Opinion
Political Geography:
Japan, China, East Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

9899. Americans Split on Military Aid to Israel, Say Political Status Quo Unacceptable

Author:
Dina Smeltz and Emily Sullivan
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Ahead of Prime Minister Bennett's first visit to Washington, Council data show partisan divides on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, support for a Palestinian state, and more. In recent years, the US-Israel relationship was stewarded by Israel’s longest-serving leader, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the man whom he referred to as “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House,” former President Donald Trump. This week, the first meeting between the two countries’ newly elected leaders, President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, will set the tone for a new era of US-Israel relations. New data from the 2021 Chicago Council Survey indicate that some differences in ideas about US policy toward Israel on Capitol Hill—heightened by the 11-day clash between Israel and Hamas last May—have corresponding divisions among the American public. The US public is sharply divided along partisan lines on key issues, including whether to take a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, support for a Palestinian state, and restrictions on the uses of military aid to Israel. Moreover, it’s not just Americans who are at odds with each other. A comparison of the recent Chicago Council Survey and a Viterbi Family Center poll shows that the American public and Jewish Israelis have opposing views on what might be acceptable solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while Israeli Arabs and Americans are broadly aligned on acceptable political outcomes.
Topic:
Politics, Foreign Aid, Military Affairs, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North Africa, and United States of America

9900. Climate Policies after Paris: Pledge, Trade, and Recycle

Author:
Christopher Bohringer, Sonja Peterson, Thomas F. Rutherford, and Jan Schneider
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
This article summarizes insights of the 36th Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF36) on the magnitude and distribution of economic adjustment costs to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Under the Paris Agreement countries voluntarily committed themselves to emission reductions – so-called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – in order to combat global warming. The study suggests that tightening of NDCs in line with the commonly agreed 2°C temperature target will induce global economic costs of roughly 1% in 2030 – yet, these costs are unevenly spread across regions with fossil fuel exporting countries being most adversely affected from the transition towards a low-carbon economy. In order to reduce adjustment costs at the global and regional level, comprehensive emissions trading which exploits leastcost abatement options is strongly desirable as it can relax contentious normative debates on equitable burden sharing. Lump-sum recycling of revenues from emissions pricing in equal amounts to every household appeals as an attractive strategy to mitigate regressive effects and thereby make stringent climate policy more acceptable on societal fairness grounds.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Recycling, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus