Climate in Russia, Agricultural Prices and Production in the 1st Quarter of 2020

Author(s):  
O.S. Sobolev ◽  

The article compares producer prices for grain, milk, and meat in Russia, the EU, and the United States in the 1st quarter of 2020. Climatic features in Russia in the 1st quarter and their possible impact on the grain crop yield were noted. The inclusion of climate factors in the database of digitalization of agriculture is justified.

Author(s):  
O.S. Sobolev ◽  

The article presents the climatic and weather features of the sowing campaign in the 1st quarter of 2021. Formulas for forecasting grain resource balances in the Russian Federation for any perspective are presented. Producer prices for grain, milk, and meat in Russia, the EU, and the United States in the 1st quarter of 2021 are compared. The influence of the grain export duty on prices in the Russian Federation and in the world is analyzed.


Author(s):  
O.S. Sobolev ◽  

The article considers the climatic conditions for the formation of agricultural products in 2020. The analysis of the functioning of agricultural markets during the coronavirus pandemic is given. Producer prices for grain, milk, and meat in Russia, the EU, and the United States in the 4th quarter of 2020 are compared.


Author(s):  
O.S. Sobolev ◽  

The article compares producer prices for grain, milk, and meat in Russia, Europe, and the United States in the 3rd quarter of 2020. Climate and weather conditions in Russia in the 3rd quarter and their impact on the gross grain harvest are analyzed. The price analysis of the domestic and world sugar market is given.


Author(s):  
O.S. Sobolev ◽  

The article compares purchase prices for grain, milk, and meat in Russia, Europe, and the United States in the 2nd quarter of 2020. The influence of weather anomalies in Russia in the 2nd quarter on the crop yield was noted, which had an impact on the price situation in the food market.


Author(s):  
Steven L Schwarcz

Securitisation represents a significant worldwide source of capital market financing. European investors commonly invest in asset-backed securities issued in U.S. securitisation transactions, and vice versa One of the key goals of the European Commission's proposed Capital Markets Union (CMU) is to further facilitate securitisation as a source of capital market financing as a viable alternative to bank-based finance for companies operating in the EU. To that end, this chapter explains securitisation and attempts to put its rise, its decline after the global financial crisis, and its recent CMU-inspired revival into a global perspective. It examines not only securitisation's relationship to the financial crisis but also post-crisis comparative regulatory approaches in the EU and the United States.


Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jenichen

AbstractIt is a common—often stereotypical—presumption that Europe is secular and America religious. Differences in international religious freedom and religious engagement policies on both sides of the Atlantic seem to confirm this “cliché.” This article argues that to understand why it has been easier for American supporters to institutionalize these policies than for advocates in the EU, it is important to consider the discursive structures of EU and US foreign policies, which enable and constrain political language and behavior. Based on the analysis of foreign policy documents, produced by the EU and the United States in their relationship with six religiously diverse African and Asian states, the article compares how both international actors represent religion in their foreign affairs. The analysis reveals similarities in the relatively low importance that they attribute to religion and major differences in how they represent the contribution of religion to creating and solving problems in other states. In sum, the foreign policies of both international actors are based on a secular discursive structure, but that of the United States is much more accommodative toward religion, including Islam, than that of the EU.


Author(s):  
Robert I. Roth ◽  
Nicholas M. Fleischer

Recent years have seen the approvals, more so in the EU than the United States, of follow-on biological drugs. These products have been new formulations of recombinant therapeutic proteins, developed to compete with the marketed originator products. Intended to closely mimic the originator products in terms of chemistry and therapeutic properties, these so-called ‘biosimilar’ products were initially conceived to be developed according to abbreviated development programmes, presumably at a substantial cost savings to both the drug developer and the consumer. With several such products now recently approved, however, it has become clear that their development programmes have been quite extensive and not particularly abbreviated. Accordingly, cost savings to consumers appear to be relatively modest.


2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Bosworth ◽  
Susan M. Collins

This paper examines U.S. goods trade with China, focusing on the performance of exports. Throughout the analysis, we explore whether U.S. trade is unusual by contrasting it with trade from Japan and the EU-15.1 The issue is examined from three perspectives: the commodity composition of exports, the role of multinational corporations (MNCs), and the determinants of trade as specified in a formal “gravity model.” As an initial point of departure, we show that the commodity composition of U.S. exports to China is similar to the pattern of exports to the world as a whole, and that the operations of U.S. MNCs have only minor implications for trade with China. Consequently, we emphasize the estimation of a set of “gravity equations” that explore the role of market size and distance from the United States. Distance exerts a surprisingly large effect on trade. Finally, although exports to China may be a small share of U.S. GDP, they are relatively substantial compared to U.S. exports to other countries. In other words, the measure of U.S. trade performance in China is distorted by the low level of its exports to all countries. We present evidence that the United States underperforms as an exporter relative to a peer group of high-income European countries and Japan.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document