Suchergebnisse

Will the world go to Riyadh if coerced to do so by the Saudi government? With friends like Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies? Upon taking power, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was seen as a reformist, market-friendly leader able to take Saudi Arabia forward into a post-fossil fuel future. This impression has taken a big hit in recent years with the 2017 embargo on Qatar as well as the still-unresolved 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia's Turkish consulate. Taking endless potshots at its fellow Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members doesn't seem to be the way to signal that Saudi Arabia is open for business. More recently, Saudi Arabia has come up with its most outlandish power play yet: It has cautioned multinationals that, unless they place their regional (read: Middle East) headquarters in Saudi Arabia, they will not be able to ink government contracts. Obviously aimed at Dubai in the UAE which vastly outstrips Saudi Arabia in "ease of doing business" indicators that you would naturally think companies would gravitate to when siting regional headquarters, the outcry has been understandably strong:Saudi Arabia, in a bold and unexpected move, announced late Monday
that by 2024 its government would cease doing business with any
international companies whose regional headquarters were not based
within the kingdom.  The news has investors, bankers and expat workers buzzing — and scratching their heads.  Saudi
Arabia in recent years has pitched itself as a location for HQ offices
in its campaign to create private sector jobs and diversify its economy
as part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's Vision 2030.But
what began as a pitch to global head offices has now become an ultimatum
for some: either relocate your headquarters to the kingdom, or lose out
on lucrative government contracts. And the move, Middle East analysts
and finance professionals say, appears to be targeted at the region's
current headquarters hub: Dubai.  Mind you, the UAE joined Saudi Arabia in the embargo on Qatar. Although regional economic rivalry is expected, punching below the belt in this way over restricting government procurement lest they headquarter in Saudi Arabia is widely perceived as unfair, especially since they are all supposedly part of a customs union in the GCC:The Saudis are "trying to lure companies out of
Dubai, I expect, and elsewhere," Ryan Bohl, a Middle East analyst at
risk consulting firm Stratfor, told CNBC. One
UAE-based financier, who spoke anonymously due to having business
operations in Saudi Arabia, described the move as "clearly targeting the
UAE" and a "jab in the face" to Dubai."It's a terrible
decision," the financier, a longtime veteran of the region, added. "It's
anti-common market, it's anti-competition, and it's essentially
corporate bullying."The truth of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is a less attractive place to site your regional HQ with its more restrictive environment--economically and socially. The latter is of particular concern to Western expats:The government aims to significantly increase Saudi Arabia's current share of less than 5% of the region's HQ offices...But will that be enough to lure expats out of Dubai, where they can
drink, wear bikinis on the beach and enjoy a far more liberal lifestyle,
comparable on many levels to the West? "The lifestyle in Saudi
is not comparable," said one Dubai-based venture capitalist, speaking
anonymously due to professional restrictions. "You don't have the same
freedoms you have here — here I can go on a public beach and hang out
... Dubai is a global city, Riyadh is far from that. It lacks the
diversity that Dubai has. That's a big deal for me." Indeed, one of Dubai's allures for foreigners is its majority expat
population — 90% across the UAE as a whole. The success of Dubai's
global openness model manifests itself in numbers as well: according to
the U.N.'s trade database, the UAE in 2019 received 300% more foreign
direct investment than Saudi Arabia, despite its economy being about
half the size.And the UAE ranked 16th on the World Bank's 2020 Ease of Doing Business Index, while Saudi Arabia ranked 63rd.Speaking of government contracts, the lure is unmistakable: a supposed $220 billion that Saudi Arabia states it will spend to make Riyadh a global city (comparable to *gulp* Dubai). What's more, there are those who say Saudi Arabia is actually coming on in leaps and bounds:The Saudi government is investing $220 billion in projects aimed at
putting Riyadh in the world's top 10 city economies, and is offering
competitive tax-free salaries to employees willing to relocate there... Still, many expats who've worked in the kingdom feel differently.
"There's no doubt that Saudi will compete with Dubai," said Alex Nasr, a
consultant with several years of experience working around the country,
adding that it's already competing on the salary front. "Now
with Vision 2030 and the radical changes the nation is pushing through,
it will begin catching up on the quality of life front … as soon as the
veil is lifted on the lifestyle restrictions, the expats will begin to
pour in."

Should intellectual property laws upheld by the WTO be waived during a COVID-19 pandemic? I almost forgot to post this one, but it's better late than never, I guess. There have been endless allusions to the idea that, rich or poor, the countries of the world are all in this fight against COVID-19 together. However, when push comes to shove, it appears the reality of the matter is rather different: A few weeks ago, large developing countries put forth the idea at the WTO that intellectual property rights on COVID-19 medicines should be abrogated while a global pandemic is going on. Perhaps unsurprisingly if regrettably, European and American countries indicated not being willing to go along. Since a consensus would have been required for an IP waiver on COVID-19 medicines to come into effect at the WTO, this effort was admittedly a long shot from the start: Wealthy nations [...] reiterated their opposition to a proposal to
waive intellectual property rules for COVID-19 drugs, three trade
sources said, despite pressure to make an exception to improve access to
drugs for poorer countries. Supporters
of the waiver say existing intellectual property (IP) rules create
barriers on access to affordable medicines and vaccines and they want
restrictions to be eased, as they were during the AIDS epidemic.But
opposition from the European Union, the United States and some other
wealthy nations at a meeting on Friday, means the proposal set to go
before the World Trade Organization's (WTO) General Council next month
is likely to fail."If
rich countries prefer profits to life, they will kill it by tying it
down in technicalities." said a delegate supporting the motion who
attended the closed-door meeting. The 164-member WTO body usually has to agree by consensus unless members agree to proceed to a vote, which is exceptional. Populous developing countries India and later China pushed for lifting IP restrictions on COVID-19 medicines, although you have to wonder if they have competing commercial interests since they too have production capabilities in making these medicines should IP be waived. Then again, the current WTO head Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (this article was written before she became its Director-General) also supported the initiative:The proposal
was first raised by India and South Africa in October. Since then,
China, which has five COVID-19 vaccine candidates in late-stage trials,
has voiced its support, as have dozens of other WTO members, mostly from
developing countries.The
World Health Organization says it supports tackling barriers to access
to COVID-19 medicines, as does Nigeria's Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, selected
by a panel to be the WTO's next director-general.You have to wonder though if some developing countries might want to declare medical emergencies that compel them to waive such IP on COVID-19 medicines under "compulsory licensing" procedures allowed by the WTO:In 2001 — at the height of the AIDS crisis and under pressure from
governments whose citizens were dying because they could not afford
life-saving medicines — the World Trade Organization waded into the battle between intellectual property and public health. The resulting Doha Declaration ruled
that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights "should not prevent members from taking measures to protect
public health."It confirmed that governments retained several mechanisms for guaranteeing affordable access to medicines, including issuing compulsory licenses,
which allow them to use an invention without the patent holder's
consent in extraordinary circumstances. This applies not only to new
drugs but also to existing medications whose patents have been extended
because pharmaceutical companies made minor changes to formulations or
discovered a new use for the medication.Given the uncertainty
over access to treatments for COVID-19, several countries have been
laying the legislative groundwork to issue compulsory licenses for
products that patent holders refuse to make accessible.I think developing countries will first observe whether they can avail of more COVID-19 medicines they believe they need under the COVAX initiative. If that avenue proves unfruitful, then don't be surprised to see "compulsory licensing" claims start appearing. Make no mistake that our world remains riven by North-South divides even amidst a global pandemic. 

There's an interesting article on Politico about how the Biden administration's pledge to limit emissions from fossil fuels will be implemented on the global stage. Sure, reducing subsidies for fossil fuel extraction and consumption at home to set an example for the rest of the world is one thing. However, there are also things the United States can do internationally to help ensure fossil fuels are kept in the ground. In an executive order issued last month, Biden tasked the United States' agencies involved in foreign assistance and development financing--the International Development Finance Corporation (formed in 2019 by combining the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Development Credit Authority), Treasury, USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation among others--with devising emissions-reducing financing. This executive order also extends to the multilateral organizations the US is a member of, including the World Bank. It states:[The Treasury Secretary shall] develop a strategy for how the voice and vote of the United
States can be used in international financial institutions, including
the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, to promote
financing programs, economic stimulus packages, and debt relief
initiatives that are aligned with and support the goals of the Paris
Agreement. In doing so, the Biden administration wants to contrast clean, green American with dirty energy China. However, there is a danger that developing countries not as green-minded as Biden may instead be pushed to deal more with China:President Joe Biden's plan to halt
U.S. funding for overseas fossil fuel projects will turn the global
spotlight on China for bankrolling coal projects around the globe. But it could also push poor countries
closer to Beijing — and risk ceding the United States' position as a
leading financier for developing economies...Biden's directive last month to move toward withholding money from international institutions like the World Bank that help poor nations build fossil fuel power plants stands in stark contrast to Beijing's flow of cash under its Belt
and Road Initiative, which supplies 70 percent of the financing for the
world's new coal-fired plants. The White House is betting its move will
paint China as hypocritical as that country — the world's top
greenhouse gas emitter — aims to take a leading role in international
climate change efforts. To be sure, there will need to be a (sorry for the public administration jargon) whole-of-government approach for the US to get its message across in a way that resonates with developing countries deciding between clean energy and fossil fuels:But the plan will require the Biden team to closely coordinate its
foreign policy, trade and clean energy initiatives, because the absence
of U.S. money for coal projects won't on its own sway other nations'
energy plans. And the U.S. cannot unilaterally offer sweet enough
financial terms for clean energy to lure countries away from China's
coal finance.It's fair to say the US has its work cut out for it in a world which has not forsworn fossil fuels. It is worth pointing out that the Obama administration which Biden was a part of already started encouraging similar measures at the World Bank that have impacted the amount of fossil fuel-based energy projects it funded:But the U.S.
could immediately start shifting billions of dollars away from fossil
energy if [Treasury Secretary] Yellen directs U.S. representatives at the World Bank and
other multilateral funders to vote against coal, said Joe Thwaites, an
associate with the World Resources Institute's Sustainable Finance
Center.The number of coal projects funded by those
institutions has already dwindled, due in part to efforts under the
Obama administration, though multilateral development banks in which the
U.S. is a shareholder accounted for $69.5 billion of fossil fuel
finance between 2008 and 2019, according to environmental group Oil
Change International.

Is Biden a worse protectionist than Trump? Prove it isn't so, Joe.I've been engaged with a lot of real-world work, so I haven't been able to post that much as of late (apologies). Still, here's my initial take on events of 2021 with Joe Biden assuming the US presidency. Although the rest of the world breathed a sigh of relief that the isolationist Donald Trump has literally departed the White House with little fanfare, the question remains: How much of an improvement will Biden be for international economic relations? A new article makes me question whether he will be much of an improvement since Biden is indicating more "Buy American" provisos for government procurement are in store to shore up US industry during these challenging times: President Joe Biden will
take steps Monday to encourage the federal government to buy more
American-made products, a move the new administration argues will
protect U.S. jobs and juice an economy severely hobbled by the deadly coronavirus pandemic.Biden, who pushed a $700 billion Buy American campaign as a candidate for president, is set to sign an executive order
that will advance several policies to boost the federal government's
purchase of U.S.-manufactured goods and services, administration
officials said Sunday.Federal law requires
government agencies to give preference to American firms when possible,
but critics say those requirements haven't always been implemented
consistently or effectively. Some have not been substantially updated
since the 1950s.The federal government spends
nearly $600 billion a year on contracts, which is money the
administration says can spur a revitalization of the nation's industrial
strength and create new markets for new technologies.To that end, Biden's order will increase the
domestic content threshold, which is the amount of a product that must
be made in the U.S. before it can be purchased by the federal
government.Right now, loopholes in federal law
allow products to be stamped "made in America" for purposes of federal
procurement even if barely 51% of the materials used to produce them are
domestically made. Administration officials did not say how much Biden
intends to increase that threshold.Actually, Trump has tried to implement something similar, although it had some loopholes still that Biden is currently trying to close:Shortly after taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump
issued a series of executive orders that were intended to strengthen
rules requiring federal agencies to buy U.S.-made goods when possible.
But critics argued that effort fell short, partly because of Trump's
failure to adequately enforce the rules.The
order that Biden will sign is expected to include a clear timeline for
updating domestic content requirements and a process for reducing
unnecessary waivers, which the administration argues would fundamentally
change how the program operates.Agencies will be required to report twice a year on their implementation of Made in America laws.Oof! Is Biden even more protectionist than Trump? That won't be such a good signal to open with in terms of repairing strained relationships with other countries. Remember also that the United States is a signatory to the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) that was intended to limit these shenanigans encouraging the purchase of own-country goods and services, and would therefore be subject to litigation by other signatories. Indeed, the Trump administration considered pulling out of the GPA for the purpose of introducing more "Buy American" policies:The U.S. is mulling a plan to withdraw from a global pact worth $1.7
trillion in government contracts, a person familiar with the matter
said, in a move that may anger close allies during a delicate moment for
trade.



Officials in President Donald Trump's administration are
circulating a draft executive order that would trigger a U.S. exit from
the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, or GPA,
if the pact isn't reformed in line with American views, according to
the person, who asked not to be identified because discussions are
ongoing. It remains to be seen how Biden will tiptoe around the United States' WTO GPA commitments without offending other member countries. Still, the question remains: Is Biden really going to be more internationalist in outlook than Trump? This episode gives us reasons to doubt whether Biden's actions will match his rhetoric (which is admittedly better to listen to).

On serait tenté de souscrire à l'affirmation de Schumpeter, à savoir que « l'abîme qui sépare Marx de Keynes est… beaucoup moins large que celui qui sépare Marx de Marshall et de Wicksell ». Mais un « abîme moins large » n'en demeure pas moins un abîme et les diverses tentatives faites jusqu'ici, à partir des deux bords, en vue d'y jeter la passerelle de 1' « Économie généralisée », ne semblent pas très réussies.Une de ces tentatives est représentée par un exposé remarquable que l'économiste marxiste, Paul Boccara, a fait à l'École Pratique des Hautes Études à la Sorbonne, dans lequel un effort systématique a été déployé pour faire converger les deux doctrines. Bien sûr, Boccara ne met les deux doctrines en parallèle que sur un point précis, ce que Marx appelle la surproduction de capital. Nous supposons en outre qu'il admette que dans l'ensemble, et hormis ce point particulier, les deux systèmes soient fondamentalement différents et irréductibles. Mais nous croyons que même sur ce chapitre, et peut-être sur celui-là encore plus que sur certains autres, l'incompatibilité des prémisses interdit certains rapprochements et c'est ce que nous nous proposons de démontrer.

Watermelon has been reported to be vulnerable to insect pest pressure throughout its growth stages with a resultant indiscriminate calendar-based insecticide application (of up to 25 sprays/season in the study area), with its attendant consequences. In order to recommend the crop growth period(s) to effect chemical control measures that will give better return on investment, field trials were set-up in the early- and late-cropping seasons of 2016 and 2017. Forty, 5m long x 8m wide plots were demarcated in randomized complete block design in 4 replications. Treatments were applications of 0.5% Cyper-diforce® (Cypermethrin 30g/L + Dimethoate 250g/L) at seedling, mid-vegetative, mid-flowering, mid-fruiting stages and their combinations. Unsprayed plots served as control. Pest and beneficial arthropod density, leaf injury, crop growth and yield data were collected and subjected to variance analysis and significantly different means were separated by SNK at 5% level of probability. Cost:benefit ratios of the various treatments was also computed. Findings indicate that, leaf-eating beetles had the highest impact on stand survival and yield. Insect pest density and damage generally decreased with increase in frequency of insecticide application and treatment differences were significant (p< 0.05) except in the case of A. gossypii in the late-sown crop of 2017. Plot sprayed at seedling + vegetative + fruiting stages gave the highest fruit yield and return on investment. It is therefore suggested that, for economic production of watermelon, the crop should not be sprayed during the flowering period.

This book is a bold and ambitious analysis of the challenges facing global sport in the 21st century and how those challenges can be met through good governance, management and regulation. Connecting the political and managerial dimensions of sport, from international governing bodies such as the International Olympic Committee through to national governing bodies, leagues and professional sport organisations, the book offers a new way of thinking about the trajectory of contemporary sport. Adopting an innovative multi-level approach - across macro, meso and micro levels – the book explores the key challenges currently facing sport, including the rapid emergence of new sports such as MMA and adventure sports; the arrival of new actors in the international sport ecosystem, such as the Gulf states and private equity investment; the growth of new technologies, such as AI; and socio-political and developmental issues such as integrity, sustainability, demographic change and sport-for-development. It considers the interaction of actors at different levels, from states to athletes and across the public and private sectors, and explores different models of sport around the world, including the dominant European and North American models. Its findings support the argument that current and future international sports governance and regulation require a more complex and nuanced method of analysis. Offering a new vision for global sport, this is essential reading for advanced students, researchers, policymakers or practitioners working in sport management, governance or policy, or with a general interest in strategy, governance or public policy.