Suchergebnisse

Every year, BICC's Global Militarisation Index (GMI) maps the relative weight and importance of a country's military apparatus in relation to its society as a whole. The Index is financially supported by Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. The GMI 2021 is an anniversary edition. Its first part reflects, as usual, current developments and trends based on the latest available data. It covers 153 countries and is based on the latest available figures (in most cases, data for 2020). The ten countries with the highest levels of militarisation in the GMI 2021 are Israel, Oman, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Armenia, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Bahrain, Singapore and Russia. These countries allocate particularly high levels of resources to the military compared to other areas of society. Besides countries primarily from conflict regions in the Middle East, three European countries can also be found here, all of which are involved in violent conflicts. A further three - Greece and Cyprus, both EU member states, and Ukraine - are among the Top 20. In the regional focus on Europe, one overall trend of the GMI 2021 becomes particularly clear: Despite the decrease in global GDP as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are spending more resources on the military in absolute terms and as a proportion of their economic output. Another regional focus this time is on Sub-Saharan Africa. In West Africa, in particular, the security situation has deteriorated dramatically over the past few years. Therefore, it is particularly interesting to look at the dynamics of militarisation on that continent. Alongside relatively stable countries, such as Botswana, Namibia, Mauritania, Angola, Gabon and Guinea-Bissau, countries with current violent conflicts, such as Chad, South Sudan and Mali, can be found among the Top 10. The second part of the GMI looks at the global and regional development of militarisation over the past 20 years. This overall view of global militarisation between 2000 and 2020 shows that, except for an interim peak in 2005, it initially decreased steadily. Our resource-based concept of militarisation explains this as follows: It is due to the increase in the world's population and that of global financial resources, which cause the proportion of the military sector in the GMI to decrease from 2000 to 2018. This, however, does not imply "true demilitarisation", as is evidenced by the absolute increase in military spending over the period under review (SIPRI, 2020). Since 2019, this trend has reversed again. In the past two years, rising militarisation can be observed again across the globe, mainly because the resources allocated to the military are increasing in absolute and in relative terms.

Los gobiernos vienen implementando medidas fiscales y monetarias más flexibles para revertir los efectos negativos de la crisis global, pero los resultados son estériles o mínimos. A pesar de haberse inyectado miles de millones de dólares en sus operaciones de salvataje financiero, las empresas multinacionales siguen mostrando señales de deterioro económico, tal es así que empresas emblemáticas en el mundo han caído en la peor crisis de su historia. El hecho de que las empresas continúan en el círculo pernicioso de la crisis, a pesar de las ayudas financieras, es valido afirmar que los paradigmas empresariales también necesitan de una reestructuración en lo profundo de su filosofía. Por ello, la crisis que afronta el modelo de globalización no amerita soluciones de coyuntura ya que no serán sostenibles en el tiempo, lo que se requiere son soluciones globales, inclusivas e integradoras de tal forma que lleve a la economía del mundo a desarrollarse simétricamente desterrando para ello todo acción especuladora que como se conoce fue el factor que condujo a la economía mundial a una de las peores crisis de su historia. ; Governments are implementing fiscal and monetary flexibility to reverse the negative effects of global crisis, but the results are sterile or minimal. Despite that injected billions of dollars to save their financial operations, multinational corporations continue to show signs of economic deterioration, so much so that flagship companies in the world have fallen into the worst crisis in the history. The fact that businesses continue in the pernicious cycle of crisis; although, financial aid is valid to assert that the paradigms of business also need a deep restructuring of their philosophy. That is why the crisis facing the model of globalization and economic merits of solutions that will not be sustainable over time, which requires global solutions, inclusive and integrate in such a way that leads to the world economy to grow symmetrically banishing all this action is know as speculators which was the factor that led to the global economy to one of the worst crisis of their history.

This book offers a concise and accessible overview and analysis of the place of large multinational and regional corporations in the political economy of global governance. May argues that not only do corporations have an impact on the institutions of global governance, but they must be understood as a multifaceted institution of global governance in their own right, controlling and shaping significant aspects of the global political economy. Topics include: What are global corporations? Corporations and global governance, The legal personality of the corporation, Corporations and power, Corporations and tax, The future role of corporations in a post crisis global system, Highlighting the central role of corporations in the generation and reproduction of norms in global governance, this work shows that corporations{u0092} practices and relations are themselves both subjects, and sources of, global governance. It offers an enhanced understanding of the complex of issues that pattern the corporate global governance in the contemporary political economy and will be of interest to students in areas including IPE, global governance and international organizations.