The combination of the terms “rapidly developing” and “economy” were used exclusively to describe the Asian Tigers and the BRICS countries just five years ago. But today, to the surprise of many, there are several new growth leaders on the African continent. The IMF paints a good picture of this trend, according to which six of the top ten fastest growing economies (by GDP growth compared to the previous year) for 2001-2010 were African (Angola, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Chad, Mozambique, and Rwanda) and seven of the top ten projected fastest growing countries for 2011-2015 (Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Congo, Ghana, Zambia, and Nigeria). Thanks to these countries, the entire continent’s economy is expected to grow by 6% in 2014. It’s clear that most of the success of the “African lions” is due directly to profits from energy exports.

On the future of EU-Russia energy relations WEJ spoke with Jack D. Sharples, expert on the EU-Russia energy relations and a lecturer at the European University at Saint-Petersburg.

Dear Mr. Sharples, how would you assess the current state of EU-Russia trade relations – who is more dependent on whom?
Currently mineral products (mainly oil and gas) account for around 71 percent of Russia’s exports. Taxation oil and gas production and export contributes around 50 percent of the Russian federal budget. The EU is the main export market for Russian oil and gas. According to Gazprom Export, in 2013, Russia exported 133 bcm of natural gas to the EU. This is 68 percent of Russia’s total pipeline gas exports. According to the latest figures from Eurostat, in 2012 Russia exported 170 million tonnes of crude oil to the EU – some 71 percent of Russia’s total crude oil exports of 240m tonnes in 2012. So clearly, oil and gas exports to the EU are important for Russia.

By the end of 2013, the BRICS countries received more than 20% of total FDI globally; twice as much as in pre-crisis years. This group of countries has thus shown that they are still of interest to investors and are cooperating to develop investment activity. $322 billion was invested in these five countries, which is 21% higher than a year earlier. In terms of total FDI, South Africa stands much lower than the others, even though there was a 126% increase. Though FDI in Brazil is high, it fell 4% last year.

Sadika Hameed, CSIS fellow, Program on Crisis, Conflict and Cooperation spoke with WEJ on the future of the Pakistan-China relations and its impact on the regional geopolitical and economic stability.
Ms. Hameed, how would assess the current state of Pakistan-China relations?
Relations between China and Pakistan are certainly close and continue to grow especially with regard to military and economic ties. These ties could possibly expand even further if China grows closer to Central Asia and wants overland access to the Arabian Sea. However, this must be viewed in a wider context with a pragmatic China and its ambitions regionally and globally to understand potential implications for the United States. China will continue to view Pakistan as a strategic ally but will carefully balance it with a growing India which is a major trading partner for them. For example, China-India trade is larger than India’s trade with the United States. Similarly, India will balance its relationship with the United States, now a close partner and ally, for economic and security reasons as well. While China and India may both also compete with each other, regional stability is vital for their regional and global ambitions.

Though no country has yet to achieve absolute gender equality, in 2013 the closest were the Northern European nations. These findings come from the Global Gender Gap Index, published annually by the World Economic Forum. What is the secret to success for the Northern European countries, and who got an “F” this year?
The Global Gender Gap Index 2013 from the World Economic Forum included 136 countries, whose combined population accounts for 93% of the global population. The index was designed to assess gender differences in countries regardless of their level of development, in a way that would yield objective results. Assessing gender inequality is measured in four key areas, where each country is ranked from one (equality) to zero (inequality) and then is given an overall score, which is a percentage of how much the country has managed to close its gender gap. The first area assessed by WEF analysts is the economic participation and opportunity of women, which is measured using criteria such as gender wage equality, female labor force participation, and the ratio of women in high-paying professions. Globally, inequality in this indicator is quite noticeable, with only 60% of the gap closed. An even wider gap can be seen in the second area of the ranking, women’s political rights and opportunities (gap closed by 21%), though that figure has risen 2% from last year. But the gaps in education and health on a global level are hardly noticeable and nearly closed at 93% and 97%, respectively. Furthermore, 25 countries earned the designation of completely equal in education. Overall, since the index was first published in 2006, 80% of the countries have made progress towards equality.
It’s interesting that in the eight years the index has been compiled, the most progress towards closing the gender gap was achieved by Latin American countries: Nicaragua improved by 17.4% since 2006, Bolivia by 16.9%, and Ecuador by 14.9%.

It is believed that women in the 20th century won equal rights and opportunities. But does this mean that the market values them on an equal basis with men? Not at all. As proof of this, Bloomberg experts estimate that women make up only 8% of the CEOs of U.S. companies with the largest capitalization on the S&P 500. And the most striking thing is that the salaries of these women are 18% less than those of men in a similar position.
Back in 1963, President John Kennedy signed into law the Equal Pay Act, requiring organizations to pay the same to men and women who perform the same jobs. Fifty years later, there is still no appreciable progress, and the issue of the gender pay gap in the U.S. is still acute. Last year, the average American woman earned 76.5 cents for every dollar earned by the average man – even less than in 2011, when the ratio was 77 cents to the “male dollar.” If the average annual income of men last year, according to the Census Bureau, was $49,398, then for women, the figure was only $37,791. Thus, over a 40-year career, the average woman working full-time would lose $443,369. And in order to earn as much as a man over her career, a woman would have to work almost 12 years longer.
Of course, this situation is reflected in pensions, which are directly dependent on wages. The formula is simple: The higher the pay, the larger the pension. It turns out that at the end of their careers, women still face inequalities. Because of their lower income in the United States, the average Social Security benefit for women above age 65 in 2011 was about $12,700 per year, compared with $16,700 for men of the same age. And the worst thing is that most women who are actively working today are likely to retire without having received all the benefits of equal pay. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), gender pay inequality will not disappear until at least 2058.