On July 15th leaders of the BRICS nations agreed to establish a New Development Bank (NDB) while attending the group summit in Fortaleza, Brazil. This announcement has caused extraordinary attention all around the world, marking the undeniable significance for the future development of the BRICS, as well as the entire foundation of the international financial institutions. Naturally, the NDB creation initiative has prompted optimistic feedback as well as raised questions and skepticism. WEJ has invited two renowned experts to explain the meaning of the BRICS New Development Bank announcement and attempt to predict what this initiative might bring to global financial and economic development.

Corruption everywhere inhibits economic growth and hinders the development of the private sector. Research conducted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that 67 of 144 states have named corruption as one of the three major obstacles to doing business in their countries. In developing economies, the level of corruption is generally higher than in developed countries, and this prevents the former from effectively implementing strategies to reduce poverty and leads to an increase in social inequality. In addition, corruption repels investors and reduces the investment attractiveness of the country, which generally has a negative impact on the economy. It is estimated that the cost of corruption (in other words, losses caused by the spread of corruption) amounts to more than 5% of world GDP (or $2.6 trillion, according to WEF data).

On June 27 the EU signed an Association Agreement with three post-Soviet states: Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. Traditionally, the EU uses Association Agreements to strengthen economic ties with countries outside the Union. The EU simplifies trade and harmonizes certain standards, including technical and legal ones, by creating a more favorable environment for economic cooperation. But in the cases of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, the Agreement has obvious political significance.

In 1959, Fidel Castro imposed a ban on the sale of residential property in Cuba. For more than fifty years after this decision was made, the only way that Cubans could move was to exchange properties on the basis of similarity. A new property should not be different from the old one in terms of square footage or style. And even if a family had the need to expand their living space and, more importantly, the means to do so, it would not have been legally possible. At the same time, other families could have housing that was too large for their needs. For example, childless families or older couples might prefer to live in a modestly sized apartment, but the paradox was that this exchange was impossible. In addition, according to one unofficial estimate, by 2011 there were about 200,000 units of vacant housing on the island, despite the fact that about a third of Cubans had to squeeze into a few square meters of living space each. According to the 2012 census, the Cuban population (11.2 million) lives in 3.9 million housing units, meaning that there is an average of 2.8 inhabitants per unit.

We wrote about the economically unequal position of women and the gender wage gap in the February issue, stating that this is a topical issue for all countries, both developed and developing. The issue of equal gender participation in the political decision-making process is even more acute. Historically, women have always been outsiders in the political arena, and until the 20th century they did not have the legal right to vote. Women began to gradually make inroads into politics once they won suffrage rights. At least three women always appear in rankings of outstanding political figures from the 20th century: Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, and Benazir Bhutto. But in the perception of many, female heads of state are still the exception to the rule.

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.