scholarly journals Institutionalization of Foreign Policy Think Tanks in Italy and in the UK: An Explanatory Framework

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Longhini
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Funding Policy ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Italian Case ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Closed Door ◽  
Few Data ◽  
The Uk

Abstract This article explores the phenomenon of foreign policy think tanks in Europe in a comparative perspective and offers a framework of analysis for this topic. Assuming that think tanks were largely imported from the US after World Wars I and II, the article argues that European think tanks have been influenced by the different national political contexts in which they have undergone a process of institutionalization. First, the article hypothesizes that such contexts have contributed to determining different incentives for cooperation between think tanks and national policymakers. Such cooperation is based on the willingness of policymakers to turn to think tanks for expertise, advice or validation of policy decisions. Secondly, different political contexts are expected to influence the strategies of action that think tanks have developed towards policymakers and their audience. In this respect, the article identifies three strategies: the generalist, the advocate and the lobbyist. Empirically, the article is based on a survey of eleven organizations conducted in two countries, Italy and the United Kingdom, in 2013-14. Given that very few data are available on this type of organization, their activities, funding, policy audience and goals are investigated. These indicators are used to investigate the main commonalities and differences between the two cases and to compare them with the hypotheses. The results first show that there is comparatively more funding available for think tanks in the UK system than in the Italian one. Secondly, there is apparently more willingness from policymakers to turn to think tanks for expertise in the former case, considering that the UK think tanks hold a higher number of closed-door events and parliamentary hearings. On the contrary, where policymakers tend, instead, to more scarcely rely on external expertise - as it seems more evident in the Italian case - the core audience of think tanks tends to shift to other, more accessible targets (the public opinion, the academia or even businesses). The case study makes it more evident how advocacy becomes a far less important activity for an Italian think tank than a UK one.

scholarly journals Trump, Brexit and Russia

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-105
Author(s):  
Ognjen Pribicevic
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk

The relations with Russia rank among the most important and most complex issues in the US and UK foreign policy. The years after the Second World War have been marked by an exhausting arms race between the Western and Eastern bloc that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States and its Western allies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relations between the US and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, during the mandate of President Trump and after Brexit and point to possible directions that these relations may take in the aftermath of Biden?s victory in the 2020 US Presidential elections. The author proceeds from a hypothesis that the efforts of President Trump, who, contrary to his predecessors, felt that the relations with Russia should be based on interests rather than ideology, have failed. He has not been successful primarily due to the huge resistance mounted by the state structures, mainstream media and anti-Russian coalition forged by the Republican and Democratic parties. The relations between the UK and Russia remain cold after Brexit as well due to the severe problems between the two countries. The first part will deal with the strained relations between the United States and Russia following the West?s victory in the Cold War, the efforts of President Trump to improve these relations and his failure to do so. The second part of the paper will address the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia, which is in many respects even more complicated than that between Russia and the US. After Brexit, the relations between the two countries continue to be plagued by the activities of the Russian agents in Great Britain, the crisis in Ukraine and different views on the war in Syria. In the third part, the concluding part of the paper, the author tried to answer the question of how the relations between the US and Russia will develop after Joseph Biden won the 2020 US Presidential elections. According to him, the new President will continue to pursue the traditional policy towards Russia agreed upon by both US parties. It can be expected that Biden will, despite the policy of sanctions pursued by his predecessors, Obama and Trump, engage more in supporting the opposition and civilian sector in Russia. Given the cold and strained relations between these two states, it may be assumed that Great Britain will readily follow a new, tougher course of action pursued by President Biden towards Russia and Putin. It is especially important for UK politics that Biden returns to the ideas of liberalism because, as we have seen on previous pages, in London, in addition to the actions of Russian agents on the UK territory, Putin is most resented precisely for his activities to overthrow the ruling liberal order. Despite the good ties between Prime Minister Johnson and the former US President who supported Brexit, Biden's victory will bring relief to the UK because of his commitment, as opposed to Trump, to bring back America to the world political stage, where London is likely to expect to find space for its new global role after leaving the EU. On the other hand, Moscow will probably continue with its past foreign policy strategy in anticipation of the moves to be taken by the new US President without high expectations regarding the future relations between the two countries. Russia has even fewer expectations when it comes to relations with the UK, given the gravity of the problems that burden the relations between the two countries

Think Tanks and Foreign Policy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuti Bhatnagar
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Policy Frames ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
The Media ◽  
Intellectual Elites

The role of think tanks as policy actors has developed over time and created significant global scholarship. Widely understood as non-state policy actors, think tanks established either with or without the support of government have evolved in various political contexts with varied characteristics. They are avenues for the discussion of new policy ideas as well as used for the consolidation of existing understandings of global and national political issues. As ideational actors think tanks interact with policy frameworks at different levels, either in the framing stage or at the stage of consensus building towards certain policies. Intellectual elites at think tanks allow for the introduction of think tank ideas into the policy frames as well as the creation of public opinion towards foreign policy decisions. Think tank deliberations involve an interaction with policymakers, academic experts, business and social actors, as well as the media to disseminate ideas. Institutionally, think tanks in a wide variety of political contexts play a critical role in the making of foreign policy and bring closer attention to processes of state–society interactions in different political environments.

Antitrust Regulation of IT Giants` Activities: Main Trends of Foreign and Russian Legislation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.V. Shram ◽  
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Economic Concentration ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Antitrust Regulation

The article is devoted to the antimonopoly regulation of IT giants` activities. The author presents an overview of the main trends in foreign and Russian legislation in this area. The problems the antimonopoly regulation of digital markets faces are the following: the complexity of determining the criteria for the dominant position of economic entities in the digital economy and the criteria for assessing the economic concentration in the commodity digital markets; the identification and suppression of cartels; the relationship between competition law and intellectual property rights in the digital age. Some aspects of these problems are considered through the prism of the main trends in the antimonopoly policy in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Russia. The investigation findings of the USA House of Representatives Antitrust Subcommittee against Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook are presented. The author justifies the need to separate them, which requires the adoption of appropriate amendments to the antimonopoly legislation. The article analyzes the draft law of the European Commission on the regulation of digital markets – Digital Markets Act, reveals the criteria for classifying IT companies as «gatekeepers», and notes the specific approaches to antimonopoly regulation in the UK and the US. The article describes the concepts «digital platform» and «network effects», presented in the «fifth antimonopoly package of amendments», developed in 2018 by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation, and gives an overview of the comments of the Ministry of Economic Development regarding these concepts wording in the text of the draft law, which formed the basis for the negative conclusion of the regulator. It is concluded that in the context of the digital markets’ globalization, there is a need for the international legal nature antitrust norms formation, since regional legislation obviously cannot cope with the monopolistic activities of IT giants.

Think Tanks and Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Brozus ◽  
Hanns W. Maull
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Think Tank

Foreign policy think tanks originated in the context of the Industrial Revolution and world wars in Western industrialized countries and then spread to all parts of the globe. In the process their national orientations toward governments and their attentive national public audiences have evolved toward a global perspective. As a consequence, they also have been drawn into, and have contributed to, the debate about the future of the Western-dominated international order. What exactly makes a think tank remains contested, but there is broad agreement on the variety of functions they fulfill. They bring knowledge to power, but power also uses them to advance its political agenda. As the idealistic notion of expert knowledge as a solution to political problems has fallen by the wayside and advocacy think tanks have flourished, the interaction of think tanks with governments, the media, and the public has become politicized. In liberal-democratic countries, there is a growing trend toward competitive knowledge production by think tanks, whereas in authoritarian systems, think tanks are increasingly being used as instruments of state-controlled public diplomacy. Ultimately, think tanks have to bridge the tension between the needs of decision-makers, on the one hand, and the standards of scientific inquiry and orientation toward the common good, on the other hand. This tension cannot be resolved, but it can be made productive. For this, a strong emphasis on professional integrity will be essential.

scholarly journals Article Commentary: Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Genetic Relatedness, Gender Implications, and Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsuya Ishii ◽  
César Palacios-González
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Relatedness ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Child Centered ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Relevant Regulation ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Transfer Procedures ◽  
Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques

In 2015 the United Kingdom (UK) became the first nation to legalize egg and zygotic nuclear transfer procedures using mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) to prevent the maternal transmission of serious mitochondrial DNA diseases to offspring. These techniques are a form of human germline genetic modification and can happen intentionally if female embryos are selected during the MRT clinical process, either through sperm selection or preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In the same year, an MRT was performed by a United States (U.S.)-based physician team. This experiment involved a cross-border effort: the MRT procedure per se was carried out in the US, and the embryo transfer in Mexico. The authors examine the ethics of MRTs from the standpoint of genetic relatedness and gender implications, in places that lack adequate laws and regulation regarding assisted reproduction. Then, we briefly examine whether MRTs can be justified as a reproductive option in the US and Mexico, after reassessing their legalization in the UK. We contend that morally inadequate and ineffective regulations regarding egg donation, PGD, and germline genetic modifications jeopardize the ethical acceptability of the implementation of MRTs, suggesting that MRTs are currently difficult to justify in the US and Mexico. In addition to relevant regulation, the initiation and appropriate use of MRTs in a country require a child-centered follow-up policy and more evidence for its safety.

Market volatility endangers moves to replace LIBOR

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interest Rates ◽  
Banking Sector ◽  
Market Volatility ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Consumer Loans ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Interest Rate Swaps ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk

Subject The transition away from LIBOR. Significance The London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) has been relied upon worldwide since 1970 for setting interest rates on syndicated loans, corporate debt, consumer loans, interest rate swaps and other derivatives. Following the 'LIBOR scandal' of 2008, the UK Financial Conduct Authority took over the regulation and administration of the rate, and no manipulation has emerged since 2013. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom and United States are determined to replace LIBOR. Impacts COVID-19 could prompt the US Fed to increase its support to the repo market, exacerbating fears that SOFR is not market determined. The scale and duration of COVID-19-related economic disruptions loom over banking sector profitability. Banks will struggle to balance immediate priorities triggered by COVID-19, and the need to devote staff and funds to the LIBOR transition.

Spain’s budget majority promises political stability

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
Economic Recovery ◽  
Socialist Party ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

Significance The minority Socialist Party (PSOE) - Unidas Podemos (UP) government needed the support of several left-wing and pro-independence parties to get the budget through. Its approval makes early elections unlikely and gives the government a better chance to shape the COVID-19 economic recovery and implement some of its 2019 electoral pledges. Impacts Spain’s poor record in absorbing EU funds suggests it will struggle to make the most of the EU recovery fund. The weakening of the UK currency will hurt Spanish exports to the United Kingdom, especially with fewer UK tourists coming to Spain. Greater political stability will enable Spain to pursue a more assertive foreign policy.

FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTS AS OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF COMMERCIALIZATION OF INNOVATIONS AT UNIVERSITIES — COMPARATIVE DATA FROM SWEDEN AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (05) ◽  
pp. 1069-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER LINDELÖF
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Transfer System ◽  
Science Parks ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Historical Developments ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Similar Legislation

This paper identifies differences in institutional contexts (legislation) between Sweden and the UK and their effects on technology transfer policies. It then proceeds to examine how such activities are organized by universities. Empirical evidence from surveys conducted with technology transfer managers at eight Swedish universities and eleven UK universities gathered in Sweden and the UK during 2004 is analyzed. It is argued that the historical developments of these systems depend on different institutional contexts, which influence the modes of organization. The UK technology transfer system is based on similar legislation to that of the US, with IPRs being granted to the universities. The Swedish system, however, grants IPRs to the individual researchers, though with some new features — such as science parks and incubators — suggesting a change towards greater agent (university) involvement in encouraging technology transfer. This change indicates a breakthrough for the "entrepreneurial university" in Sweden.

scholarly journals Britain between the U.S. and Europe

2021 ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Ananieva Elena
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Middle Power ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Prime Minister T. May has put forward the concept of "Global Britain". After the United Kingdom had left the EU, the concept was formalized under the government of Boris Johnson in the document “Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy "Global Britain in a Competitive Age"”. The article presents an analysis of its goals, methods and practical implementation. Britain, realizing itself as a "middle power", intends to build a system of alliances to counter China and Russia, the latter designated as an ”acute direct threat” to the UK.

scholarly journals A survey of working conditions within biomedical research in the United Kingdom

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 229
Author(s):  
Nick Riddiford
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
The Us ◽  
Toxic Environment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Guardian

Background: Recent articles have presented a bleak view of career prospects in biomedical research in the US. Too many PhDs and postdocs are trained for too few research positions, creating a “holding-tank” of experienced senior postdocs who are unable to get a permanent position. Coupled with relatively low salaries and high levels of pressure to publish in top-tier academic journals, this has created a toxic environment that is perhaps responsible for a recently observed decline in biomedical postdocs in the US, the so-called “postdocalypse”. Methods: To address the gulf of information relating to working habits and attitudes of UK-based academic biomedical researchers, a link to an online survey was included in an article published in the Guardian newspaper. Survey data were collected between 21st March 2016 and 6th November 2016 and analysed to examine discrete profiles for three major career stages: PhD, postdoc and principal investigator. Results: Overall, the data presented here echo trends observed in the US: The 520 UK-based biomedical researchers responding to the survey reported feeling disillusioned with academic research, due to the low chance of getting a permanent position and the long hours required at the bench. Also like the US, large numbers of researchers at each distinct career stage are considering leaving biomedical research altogether. Conclusions: There are several systemic flaws in the academic scientific research machine – for example the continual overproduction of PhDs and the lack of stability in the early-mid stages of a research career - that are slowly being addressed in countries such as the US and Germany. These data suggest that similar flaws also exist in the UK, with a large proportion of respondents concerned about their future in research. To avoid lasting damage to the biomedical research agenda in the UK, addressing such concerns should be a major priority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document