Search

Begin New Search Topic Economics Political Geography Europe

81. Volume 71 Issue 2

Author:
Gökhan Karabulut
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Istanbul Journal of Economics
Institution:
Istanbul University Faculty of Economics
Abstract:
Istanbul Journal of Economics-İstanbul İktisat Dergisi is an open access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal published two times a year in June and December. It has been an official publication of Istanbul University Faculty of Economics since 1939. The manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal must be scientific and original work in Turkish or English. Being one of the earliest peer-reviewed academic journals in Turkey in the area of economics, Istanbul Journal of Economics-İstanbul İktisat Dergisi aims to provide a forum for exploring issues in basicly economics and publish both disciplinary and multidisciplinary articles. Economics is the main scope of the journal. However, multidisciplinary and comparative approaches are encouraged as well and articles from various social science areas such as sociology of economics, history, social policy, international relations, financial studies are welcomed in this regard. The target group of the journal consists of academicians, researchers, professionals, students, related professional and academic bodies and institutions.
Topic:
Economics, Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Oil, Political Economy, Natural Resources, Exchange Rate Policy, and Industry
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Asia

82. An Overview of Agricultural Support Policies in Turkey: A Comparative Regional Analysis

Author:
Hakan Uslu
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
The agricultural sector is seriously affected by changes in many economic, social, or environmental factors. Hence, the necessity of supporting the sector by governments in various ways has become an indisputable reality. However, regional characteristics must be taken into account in order for these supports to reach their goals. Using a dataset spanning from 2002 to 2020, the current study comparatively analyses the changes in the agricultural support and agricultural production, income, and the value of products in two agricultural regions of Turkey, Central Anatolia and Southeast Anatolia regions. The results highlight that the increase in agricultural income is very low in both regions compared to the substantial changes in agricultural support policies. Additionally, the increase in the values of agricultural products in both regions is much higher than the increase in agricultural income, suggesting that the costs in agricultural activities are too high in the analysed regions.
Topic:
Agriculture, Economics, Environment, Governance, and Rural
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Asia

83. Energy price hikes: which European solutions?

Author:
Ramona Bloj
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
As energy prices rise around the world, against the backdrop of the post-Covid economic recovery, the 27 EU leaders discussed what Europe could do to ease the pressure on consumers at the European Council on 21-22 October. The increase in prices is due to a particular international context and is affecting all countries: China is facing electricity shortages in many provinces due to insufficient coal supply, and in the United States the price of natural gas has risen by more than 150% since the beginning of the year. However, this increase raises questions about Europe's energy strategy and its impact on climate objectives, just a few days before the opening of COP26 in Glasgow.
Topic:
Climate Change, Economics, Energy Policy, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe

84. The Automotive Industry: The Achilles’ Heel of German Economy?

Author:
Marie Krpata
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The global car market has been shrinking since 2018. This is a key economic sector for Germany whose producers belong to the Top 15 carmakers worldwide. Yet they are running the risk of being outclassed and eventually replaced, given emerging actors in the USA and China. These new competitors benefit from the growing digitization of the mobility sector, disruptive economic models and the obsolescence of vehicles with an internal combustion engine. This form of propulsion is progressively being replaced by less-polluting alternatives, which are being endorsed by public authorities. The Chinese-American rivalry is also impacting German carmakers, whose strategy greatly relies on the globalization of production chains. This has led to major successes in the past, but the threat of a technological decoupling between the USA and China limits German carmakers’ activities in terms of production and exports. Access to the Chinese market, which accounts for nearly 20% of the global population, is indispensable for the German brands that intend to benefit from China’s catch-up effects. European industrial and political actors plan to invest in promising sectors whilst seeking to respect environmental and social objectives. Also, the European Union (EU), led by a German powerhouse, intends to prevent market distortions such as hurdles to market access, while supporting the emergence of technologies and the compliance with production standards. However, developments in the automotive sector are challenging the EU’s capacity to act in a unified fashion, even if the EU is not seeking to impose its vision on the industry’s private sector, in a top-down manner.
Topic:
Climate Change, Economics, Energy Policy, Industrial Policy, European Union, Social Policy, Mobility, Industrialization, Green Deal, and Automotive Industry
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

85. Biden and Belarus: A strategy for the new administration

Author:
Anders Åslund, Melinda Haring, John Herbst, and Alexander Vershbow
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has an historic opportunity to bring Europe together and reverse the tide of dictatorship by building an international coalition to support democracy in Belarus. In 2020, Belarusians unexpectedly called Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s legitimacy into question in the country’s August presidential election. Lukashenka brazenly rigged the results, claiming that he took 80 percent of the vote, but neither the United States nor the European Union (EU) recognizes his victory. A months-long protest movement has coalesced that demands new elections under the supervision of the international community. Recent years have seen no better chance for US leadership to facilitate lasting positive change in Europe than the crisis in Belarus. But how to secure democratic change in Belarus is not simple given internal resistance and Moscow’s determination to prevent another “color revolution.” Lukashenka is likely finished, unable to restore any authority or legitimacy. But he is seeking to hang on despite Moscow’s efforts to arrange a pliable replacement who would preserve Minsk’s pro-Russian orientation. Managing Moscow’s efforts to prevent an aroused citizenry from choosing their own leader is no easy task. Russia remains the key geopolitical player in Belarus, often plays the long game, and may be willing to countenance military options that the United States cannot. Perhaps the key fact is that Belarusians have made it amply clear that they want accountable leaders that they can choose and dismiss for themselves. More than thirty thousand peaceful protesters have been detained since August, more than three hundred and fifty police officers have defected, and ordinary Belarusians are no longer afraid to voice their opposition to the regime. Kremlin support for the ongoing repression risks turning the Belarusian people—historically friendly toward Russia—in a pro-European direction. These changes in Belarus are something that Moscow cannot ignore, and the United States and its allies must nourish and strengthen them in consistent ways that avoid and deter a Kremlin overreaction. Biden, with his long experience promoting US values and interests and his determination to strengthen transatlantic relations, is ideally situated to promote clear support for the people of Belarus that does not directly challenge Moscow’s security interests.
Topic:
Economics, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Belarus, and United States of America

86. Georgia After the Second Karabakh War

Author:
Mamuka Tsereteli
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
The outcome of the Second Karabakh War between Azerbaijan and Armenia significantly trans­formed the geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus, with im­plications for the wider Black Sea‑Caspian region. The unsettled political geography of the South Caucasus and the ethno‑political separatism fueled by external actors since the early 1990s left bleeding wounds on the bodies of the newly re‑emerged sovereign states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. These conflicts have determined the trajectory of the geopolitical developments of the region for the last 30 years, including on the for­eign policy orientations of these new states. The conflicts in the South Caucasus were the primary challenge for transforming the strategic assets of this region into greater political and economic success. Three major conflict areas in the South Caucasus were former autonomous regions, created in the early Soviet period: Nagorno‑Karabakh, Abkhazia, and the Tskhinvali region, what was called South Ossetia. (Briefly: the latter term was introduced by the Soviets in the 1920s as a name for the newly created autonomous area in Georgia, popu­lated by Ossetians alongside ethnic Georgians. The historic homeland of Ossetians is located to the north of the Greater Caucasus mountains. Following the Soviet tradition of planting ethno‑political time bombs, Ossetia proper—located in the Russian Federation—was named North Ossetia, while the Tskhinvali region of Georgia—with the Ossetian population at the time concentrated in the border areas with Russia—was named South Ossetia.) As of today, all three of these areas are self‑proclaimed indepen­dent states, are formally ruled by de facto governments, and saw fierce military confrontation in the early 1990s. In 2008, the Tskhinvali region became the battleground between Russian and Georgian forces. In 2020, Azerbaijan regained through a combination of military action and diplomatic brinksmanship all seven regions outside of Nagorno‑ Karabakh that had been occupied by Armenia, as well as one‑third of the former Nagorno‑Karabakh region. In the case of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, as of mid‑2021, these ter­ritories remain, in reality, governed by Russian occupational forces. The Russian military influence was in­serted into Karabakh after the war that ended on November 10th, 2020, with Russian peacekeepers playing an increasing role in the governance of the region. In terms of geopolitical orienta­tion, Armenia willingly allowed Russian troops onto its territory, seeing them as a security guar­antee and deterrent against Azer­baijan. Georgia aligned itself with the Western powers, determined to join NATO and the EU. The conflicts on Georgian territory are seen as punishment from Russia for Georgia’s pro‑Western focus. As a result, there has been a heavy Russian military presence in the separatist areas of Georgia since the Russian invasion to Georgia in 2008.
Topic:
Security, Economics, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

87. Transatlantic Paralysis: The US-EU Trade Policy Stalemate and the European Union’s Democratic Deficit

Author:
Thomas J. Duesterberg
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
What is often labeled the democratic deficit in governance of the European Union (EU) is not a a flaw or bug in its architecture, it is a design feature. From its earliest days in the Second World War’s chaotic aftermath, European integration “was essentially an elite project, pursued at a distance from the daily concerns of the national populations in Western Europe.” Also formed as a response to the economic disintegration following the Depression and World War Two, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was similarly removed from national or populist politics. It too was an elite, top-down initiative designed to embed nations in a system of international rules largely articulated by technical experts, enforced by a form of international courts, and far removed from national and populist politics. Many of the intellectual proponents of both supranational institutions, from the Austrian School of economics, the ordoliberals emerging in early-20th century Germany, to the London School of Economics indeed shared a distrust of American-style democracy, let alone the various parliamentary democracies whose failure led to the disasters of the 1930s and 1940s. Over the last fifty years, the institutions put in place after World War II have been perfected and have, to a certain extent, ossified. Many of the difficulties in achieving greater US-EU economic coordination in the 21st century have their origins in the institutional design and the subsequent early implementation of early European Community rules during the post-war period. A brief overview of the history of European integration, and the political thinking behind it, helps explain the current paralysis in contemporary transatlantic cooperation, including in a joint approach to the challenge of Chinese mercantilism and its growing international reach.
Topic:
Economics, Governance, Democracy, Trade, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

88. Nudging for Recovery: Behavioral Economics and the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan

Author:
Demosthenes Kollias
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
With the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, Greece is presented with yet another opportunity to catch up with global trends. At the same time, behavioral economics are being established worldwide as a valuable asset in the policy maker’s toolkit. The paper -mainly focusing on taxation, labor market policy, and climate change- aims to examine the behavioral conundrum that creates frictions and inefficiency in the domains outlined above and to offer concrete and quantifiable policy proposals, in accordance with the goals of Greece 2.0. Regarding tax evasion, for example, one can estimate at least €1 billion in additional tax revenue if the proposals are implemented.
Topic:
Climate Change, Economics, Tax Systems, Labor Market, and Economic Recovery
Political Geography:
Europe and Greece

89. EU-Turkey Economic Relations and the Customs Union: a rules-based approach

Author:
Dimitris Tsarouhas
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
Trade and economic relations remain the cornerstone of EU-Turkey relations. The Customs Union (CU) is the sole institutionalized instrument that remains important for both sides. Launching negotiations on how to update its content offers a set of fresh opportunities for the EU to reintroduce political as well as economic conditionality in its relations with Turkey. A step-by-step approach based on monitoring and benchmarking can enhance EU leverage vis á vis Turkey and allow the EU to escape a cycle of ineffective policy interventions on Turkey’s political trajectory. The CU can also become a vehicle to assist the democratic segments of Turkey’s civil society as well as those EU member states who have found themselves searching for an alternative to Turkey’s failed Europeanization.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Migration, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe and Turkey

90. Snakes, rats and drug addicts used to dwell here – analysis of the narrative utilised to capture the state

Author:
Luka Steric
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
Foreign direct investments are the cornerstone of the current government’s economic policy. In their statements, the officials call them drivers of development, saying that they have enabled the revival of the economy and turned Serbia into the “economic tiger of Southeast Europe.”1 The fact that the value of the investments Serbia has managed to attract is greater “than what was achieved by all the countries of the Western Balkans put together” 2 is often mentioned as the key measure of success. However, the story of brilliant success quickly loses its lustre when one considers the long-term effects and all-encompassing consequences of this policy. Due to the way they are contracted and implemented, foreign direct investments represent one of the key mechanisms for capturing the state. Hiding behind the stories of a better future and new jobs, the government is breaking down the system of legal regulations and statutory procedures, promoting private interest to the detriment of the public one, and using foreign investments as propaganda ammunition to legitimise unlimited power. The results of such policy are a number of negative consequences for the state and the citizens, such as the increase of public debt, dramatic violation of workers’ rights and alarming problems with environmental pollution. In order to mask the negative consequences and legitimise the policy of attracting foreign investors based on the above described pattern, a complex narrative has been developed presenting foreign investments as a successful, and the only possible, model for state development. This meta-narrative about progress, which media are building up every day, is based on four basic component narratives: on the economic revival, on the efficiency of personal rule, on transparent contracts and on the opponents of Serbia’s development who ‘unfoundedly’ criticise the government’s economic success. In the analysis of the narrative we will focus on the statements of officials made since 2012, which is when the regime led by the Serbian Progressive Party came to power. Many of the described mechanisms, such as non-transparent, harmful contracts and unjustifiably high subsidies, also existed during the previous government.3 However, the capture of the state, carried out - among other things - with the help of foreign direct investments, has reached completely new dimensions under the current regime, while the narratives that accompany it have been significantly ‘improved’.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Foreign Direct Investment, and Drugs
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia