Search results

Russia's hybrid war on the West has begun to afflict Western politics in ways that are remarkably similar to its effects on the "lands in between," small, vulnerable countries in Europe situated in between Russia and the European Union. While many in the West are only beginning to understand how hybrid war affects politics at home, Russia's meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections and subsequent elections in Europe brought to the fore problems that front-line states had been dealing with for years. Their experiences hold important lessons. This text, written by a US expert on Europe with wide experience in the UK, France, Czechia, Poland, and Russia, shows how this conflict has deepened political polarization in the lands in between, forcing countries to face a 'civilizational choice' between Russia and the European Union.

Russia's hybrid war on the West has begun to afflict Western politics in ways that are remarkably similar to its effects on the "lands in between," small, vulnerable countries in Europe situated in between Russia and the European Union. While many in the West are only beginning to understand how hybrid war affects politics at home, Russia's meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections and subsequent elections in Europe brought to the fore problems that front-line states had been dealing with for years. Their experiences hold important lessons. This text, written by a US expert on Europe with wide experience in the UK, France, Czechia, Poland, and Russia, shows how this conflict has deepened political polarization in the lands in between, forcing countries to face a 'civilizational choice' between Russia and the European Union.

To what extent do international organizations, global policy networks, and transnational policy entrepreneurs influence domestic policy makers? Have we entered a new phase of globalization that, unbeknownst to most citizens, shapes policies that used to be the sole domain of domestic politics? Privatizing Pensions reveals how international institutions--such as the World Bank, USAID, and other transnational policy actors--have played a seminal role in the development, diffusion, and implementation of new pension reforms that are transforming the postwar social contract in more than thirty cou.

When I cracked open Marlene Laruelle's new book, Is Russia Fascist?, I immediately wondered, who really thinks Russia is fascist? I was aware of Timothy Snyder's study of Russian President Vladimir Putin's glorification of the debatably fascist political theorist Ivan Ilyin, but fascist? Really? But Laruelle quickly shows in the introduction that this is not a canard or a straw man. Many reputable scholars and public intellectuals have drawn parallels between the Putin regime, its actions, and European fascism, including Snyder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander Motyl, Vladimir Inozemtsev, Gary Kasparov, Anna Politkovskaya, Madeline Albright, and Hillary Clinton. The term "fascism" has become part of the Western discussion on the nature of the Putin regime, even more so since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

De 1981 à 2004, plus de trente pays ont remplacé, entièrement ou en partie, leurs régimes publics de retraite par répartition par des systèmes fondés sur des comptes d'épargne individuels privés. Mais, en 2005, la privatisation des retraites s'est brutalement arrêtée. Après la crise de 2008, certains des pays qui avaient privatisé leurs systèmes de retraite ont rétrogradé, voire ont supprimé les comptes individuels. La privatisation des retraites est-elle morte ? Et si oui, pourquoi ? Cet article tente de déterminer si des facteurs budgétaires ou idéologiques – en particulier les débats suscités au sein de la Banque mondiale par les échecs de la privatisation des retraites – ont suspendu la privatisation des retraites au niveau mondial. Il avance que les réseaux politiques transnationaux ont fait évoluer leur doctrine en se fondant sur l'expérience et ont mis l'accent sur des pensions minimums et des mesures incitatives plutôt que sur des épargnes retraites obligatoires, afin de sauver la privatisation des retraites.

Europe is again a divided continent. When it comes to governance, political economy, or values, two contrasting poles have emerged: one Western, liberal, and democratic, another Eastern, statist, and autocratic. The dividing line between them has become ever sharper, threatening to separate Europe into two distinct worlds. This new divide in Europe arises from a clash between two geopolitical concepts for the continent: One is the Western project of a "Europe whole and free," an enlarging zone of economic cooperation, political interdependency, and democratic values. The other is the Russian project of a "Eurasian Union" to rival the European Union. This article shows how these two sides of Europe have grown further apart in their conceptions of the European space, their values, governance, and economic models. It explores the reasons for the belated Western responses to Russian President Vladimir Putin's program to divide Europe. The Russo-Georgian war was a turning point, but the West took a long time to recognize the full implications of Putin's policy. The current confrontation between Russia and the West is not exactly like the Cold War. Russia's position is weaker. And the battle will be fought out primarily with economic instruments. However, it is clear that this conflict places Central and Eastern Europe back on the front lines of a divided Europe, raising any number of demons from the past.

Anyone who knows Polish history cannot help but marvel at the country's emergence from the ashes of its traumatic past. Over the last 25 years, Poland, after centuries of war and subjugation, has enjoyed peace, a stable and booming economy, and integration with the rest of Europe. Adapted from the source document.

From 1981 to 2004, a paradigm shift occurred in pension systems worldwide as more than 30 countries fully or partially replaced their state‐administered pay‐as‐you‐go pension systems with ones based on individual, private savings accounts. Yet in 2005, pension privatization abruptly stopped. After the 2008 crisis, several countries that had privatized their pension systems scaled back or even canceled individual accounts. Is the new pension paradigm dead? And if so, why? This article shows that fiscal and ideational factors caused a temporary halt to pension privatization worldwide and induced transnational pension policy networks to find new ways to respond to perceived failures. Adjustments to the new pension paradigm such as emphasizing minimum pensions and recommending that governments "nudge" rather than mandate pension savings will enable pension privatization to continue in years ahead, albeit in a revised form.