Search results

The lessons learned from the crisis management of the 2008 Great Recession are due to significant structural differences between the two centers of the world, the United States and the eurozone. This has been the worst and most widespread global economic downturn since the Great Depression. The crisis is over, but it seems that the crisis has long-lasting consequences. In the case of the United States, a monetary, fiscal and political union is realized, which with a single economic policy, operates as a coherent unit, uniting the three areas. GDP is rising, unemployment is at the lowest level since 1969 and government debt is the highest it has ever been which can cause problems in the long run. In the case of the eurozone, we can talk about a monetary union. The crisis has highlighted the structural flaws of the eurozone, because without a unified fiscal policy no effective economic policy can be achieved. The symptoms of the euro area crisis weren't the consequences of the global economic crisis; rather the stalling of the integration process, the lack of real convergence, and the weaknesses of monetary and fiscal policy were the problems that have been brought to the fore and exacerbated by the crisis. I consider the crisis management of the United States to be more successful, in which the single economic policy has played an important role – as long as the eurozone doesn't deepen integration, it will not be able to address vulnerabilities between its countries. For Central Europe to be competitive, it has to have the right economic policies and an independent monetary policy. The postcrisis recovery has taken place, but in order to avoid further crises and to have a faster convergence towards the eurozone, we need targeted steps which could create the opportunities.

A 20. század második felének bipoláris hatalma struktúráját (Amerikai Egyesült Államok versus Szovjetunió) követően a 21.században a két hagyományos nagyhatalom mellett egy újabb globális geopolitikai és geoökonómiai nagyhatalom is megjelent Kína gazdasági és katonai előtörésével. Az Amerikai Egyesült Államok vezető szerepe ugyanakkor (egyelőre) megkérdőjelezhetetlen, de Kína gazdaságilag tíz éven belül beérheti, Oroszország ásványkincs vagyona (földgáz, kőolaj) pedig függőségét jelent számos gazdasági hatalom számára. A három globális geopolitikai hatalom egymás közötti, bilaterális gazdasági és kereskedelmi kapcsolatai az elmúlt évtizedben nagyon heterogén módon alakultak: az amerikai-orosz relációban lineárisan csökkenő, az amerikai-kínai relációban jelentősen növekvő, majd a kereskedelmi háborúnak köszönhetően (talán átmenetileg) megtorpanó és csökkenő, az orosz-kínai relációban pedig folyamatosan növekvő trend figyelhető meg az elmúlt évtizedben. Az Oroszország által életre hívott gazdasági és kereskedelmi kezdeményezés a Szovjetunió felbomlását követő integrációs törekvések folytatása, az Eurázsiai Gazdasági Unió az elmúlt öt évben sikereket tud felmutatni, azonban már rövid távon is jelentős kihívásokkal néz szembe és kérdéses a további fejlődése. Előre tekintve új globális kockázati tényezők jelentek meg, melyek közül a legaktuálisabb és legnagyobb hatású a koronavírus járvány világszintű megjelenése és elterjedése. A globális szereplők egészségügyi és gazdasági járvány adott válasz lépései mind sebességet, mind mélységet tekintve heterogén képet mutatnak. Kérdés, hogy a jelenleg még mélyülő globális gazdasági válság a nemzetállamok szerepét fogja-e felerősíteni vagy új szövetségek jönnek létre a világban. Izgalmas, fordulatokkal teli évek következnek a globális geopolitikai színtéren, ahol a status quo megváltozása várható, új hatalmi központok jöhetnek létre, régi szövetségi rendszerek szűnhetnek meg illetve újak alakulhatnak ki, melyek a jelenlegi tripoláris világrendet alapjaiban változtathatják meg. Following the structure of bipolar power in the second half of the 20th century (United States versus the Soviet Union), in the 21st century, in addition to the two traditional superpowers, another global geopolitical and geoeconomic superpower emerged with the economic and military outbreak of China. At the same time, the leadership of the United States of America (for the time being) is unquestionable, but China can reach the nominal GDP of the US within ten years and still many economic powers depend on Russia's mineral wealth (natural gas, oil). Bilateral economic and trade relations between the three global geopolitical powers have evolved in a very heterogeneous manner over the last decade: linearly declining in the US-Russian relationship, significantly increasing in the US-China relationship, and then (possibly temporarily) due to the trade war stagnant and declining, and the Russian-Chinese relationship has been steadily increasing over the last decade. The economic and trade initiative launched by Russia is a continuation of the integration efforts following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the Eurasian Economic Union has been successful over the last five years, but it faces significant challenges in the short term and its further development is questionable. Looking ahead, new global risk factors have emerged, the most relevant and influential of which is the global emergence and spread of the coronavirus epidemic. The response of global actors to the health and economic epidemic shows a heterogeneous picture in terms of both speed and depth. The question is whether the global economic crisis, which is currently deepening, will strengthen the role of nation-states or create new alliances in the world. Exciting, turbulent years will follow on the global geopolitical scene, where the status quo is expected to change, new centers of power may emerge, old federal systems may disband, and new ones may be formed that can fundamentally change the current tripolar world order.

This paper is aimed at analysing the impact of the crisis of the liberal international order on the transatlantic relations. Both the EU and the US have vital interest to maintain the existing international order, however regarding certain foreign policy goals we witness an increasingly divergent approach to world politics. This is the case with the Middle East, where the EU acts as a global player based on historical ties, while the United States have recently started a gradual disengagement from the region. The so-called post-American Middle East have its own opportunities as well as challenges for the European diplomacy. This article focuses on the differences between the EU and the US foreign policy goals related to the Middle East. It primarily addresses the Iranian nuclear program and the Middle East Peace Plan recently launched by the US. The author argues despite some differences in interests, the EU and the US do not perceive the region in an entirely different way.

One striking aspect of the coronavirus crisis was the poor response of the right-wing populist leaders to the pandemic in countries such as the US, Britain, and Brazil. Despite this fact, the continuing voter support right-wing populist leaders attract across countries with different socio-economic traits is puzzling. In this paper, we argue in favour of a cognitive anthropological view of populism scholarship. Cognitive and evolutionary anthropology shows that mental systems common to all humans shape the way we understand the world, making some ideas more plausible than others regardless of their levels of accuracy. Even though the action of 'building a wall' to keep illegal migrants away can prove ultimately unfeasible and does not address real immigration issues, due to our cognitive evolution, it makes intuitive sense as a plausible option to reducing immigration. Populist leaders exploit our cognitive intuitions by providing such intractable but oftentimes intuitively-plausible ideas in order to get elected or to promote preferred policies. Furthermore, we intuitively admire powerful individuals and tend to defer to authoritative and charismatic figures as an evolutionary strategy for acquiring valued skills and negotiating hierarchies. As a result, by committing to the intuitively-plausible policies populist leaders promote, such as 'building a wall', they give additional credence to the political beliefs that are based on our cognitive intuitions, effectively increasing their plausibility for the "common folk".

The aim of this study is to present the main events in the Hungarian-Serbian economic relations during the last two decades by summarizing the most important moments, their causes and consequences. After the fall of Milošević, it was necessary to re-establish the contractual relationship between the two countries and the corporate relationships terminated during the embargo. After the very promising start, the assassination of the Serbian prime minister, the constant domestic political crises, the government unwilling to make closer contacts, and according to the European standards the closed society of Serbia at that time, hasn't become a political or economic ally of Hungary. In the time when the world economic conditions were in favour of overall development of bilateral economic relations. However the global economic crisis and recession has brought back not only the willingness to invest in Hungary, but also the bilateral trade. The historic reconciliation following the slow political rapprochement in 2014, has made the breakthrough, and contributed not only to the better enforcement of the Hungarian economic interests, but also to the prosperity of Hungarians in their native country, in Serbia. The Hungarian government is supporting Serbia's EU integration process and in all foreign policy issues. As the result of this approach, there are no open questions between Budapest and Belgrade. The preconditions for the constant evolution of the economic relations without special support were the political gestures and friendly attitude of the two governments regarding the earlier sensitive questions and the national issues.

A publikáció felhívja a figyelmet a világgazdaságban létező gazdasági erőközpontok és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó peremterületek gazdasági szimbiózisának működési mechanizmusára. A centrum-periféria modellek segítségével mutatja be a gazdasági központok és perifériáik kapcsolatát, elemezi e régiók fejlődéséhez vezető okokat, az egymáshoz kötődő gazdasági kapcsolataikat. A cikk az Európai Unió központjának és perifériájának fejlődésére összpontosít, megvizsgálva e régiók gazdasági fejlődésének történelmi hátterét, hangsúlyozva az ipari forradalom jelentőségét Nyugat-Európában. A tanulmány kitér a német migrációs politika bemutatására a II. világháború végétől napjainkig. Elemezi a német statisztikai hivatal adatait, és bemutatja a Németországban élő külföldi népesség számának és arányának változását a 20. század második felében. A német migrációs politika ismertetése során a bevándorlási szabályok enyhítésének változását vizsgálja kitérve a 2015-ös migrációs válság hatásaira. A cikk bemutatja a német kormány előtt álló kihívásokat és a bevándorlók beilleszkedésének nehézségeit, a külföldi állampolgárok németországi kulturális hátterét, az egyes nemzetiségek számát és arányát a német társadalomban. A kiadvány a közép-európai államok gazdasági együttműködési rendszerén keresztül meghatározza a közép-európai feldolgozóipari központ államait és gazdasági szerepét az Európai Unióban, valamint rávilágít, hogy Németország a közép-európai régió gazdasági központja, amely beruházásai és termelési kapacitásainak bővítése révén meghatározza a visegrádi országok gazdasági fejlődését, és egy sajátos gazdasági centrum periféria kapcsolatrendszer kiépítéséhez vezet. The center-periphery models show the relationship between the economic centers and its periphery in the geographical area, analyze the reasons leading to the development and development of these regions and illustrate their economic relations with each other. The publication focuses on the development of the center and periphery of the European Union, examining the historical background of the economic development of these regions, emphasizing the importance of the industrial revolution in Western Europe. The aim of the study is to present the German migration policy from the end of the World War II to the present. It analyzes the data of the German statistical office and shows the changing of the number and proportion of foreign population living in Germany in the second half of the 20th century. During the presentation of the German migration policy discusses the study the process of easing immigration rules and the migration crisis in 2015. The article presents the challenges faced by the German government and the difficulties of integrating immigrants. It discusses the different cultural backgrounds of foreign citizens in Germany, lists the proportion of each nationality within German society. The publication describes the economic co-operation system of the Central European states and defines the states and economic role of the Central European manufacturing core in the European Union. The publication states that Germany is the economic center of the Central European region, which also determines the economic development of the Visegrad countrys by introducing production capacities.