At the Gleneagles summit in July 2005, the heads of state from the G-8 countries - the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom - called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the African Development Bank to cancel 100 percent of their debt claims on the world's poorest countries. The world's richest countries have agreed in principle to forgive roughly $55 billion dollars owed by the world's poorest nations. This article considers the wisdom of the proposal for debt forgiveness, from the standpoint of stimulating economic growth in highly indebted countries. In the 1980s, debt relief under the "Brady Plan" helped to restore investment and growth in a number of middle-income developing countries. However, the debt relief plan for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) launched by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1996 has had little impact on either investment or growth in the recipient countries. We will explore the key differences between the countries targeted by these two debt relief schemes and argue that the Gleneagles proposal for debt relief is, at best, likely to have little effect at all. Debt relief is unlikely to help the world's poorest countries because, unlike the middle-income Brady countries, their main economic difficulty is not debt overhang, but an absence of functional economic institutions that provide the foundation for profitable investment and growth. We will show that debt relief may be more valuable for Brady-like middle-income countries than for low-income ones because of how it leverages the private sector.

The Soviet Union placed a high priority on science and technology and built a huge assembly of research institutes, educational programs, design bureaus, and production enterprises embodying some measure of science and/or technology. This assembly concentrated overwhelmingly on military applications. Approximately three-quarters of this complex was located in Russia, but essential elements of many programs were located in other republics.

Starting in the Gorbachev regime there was a recognition that the economy was deteriorating and that it was necessary to reduce military expenditures and increase the civilian economy. A major element of this has been the attempt to direct a much greater effort toward the development of commercial products and services based upon technologies and skills developed in the military-industrial complex (MIC). This commercialization of Soviet and Russian military technology has been attempted by the Russians both independently, through conversion programs, and in cooperation with foreign partners. The conversion programs have had very limited success. The success of attempts at cooperative commercialization by U.S. companies and Russian enterprises have also been modest, but they illustrate workable models that could be utilized by other cooperative ventures. These cooperative commercialization ventures are the primary subject of this report.

This research is based primarily on the study of several cases of cooperative attempts by U.S. companies and Russian enterprises to commercialize Russian technology. Additional information has been gathered through participation in workshops and conferences including sessions or presentations on technology commercialization. There is no attempt to determine the total amount of such activity, but foreign investment of all types in Russia has been very small. These cases may not be representative of what is going on at many defense enterprises, especially those that do not have foreign partners. They do, however, show models of what can be achieved, as well as some of the problems encountered in technology commercialization.

The currency crisis that started in Thailand in the summer of 1997 was followed by repercussions on the currencies of neighboring countries, culminating in a crisis infecting most countries in East Asia. Japan and China, which have developed strong ties with the rest of Asia through trade and investment, have not been exempted from this contagion. This paper looks at the latest currency crisis in Asia from the perspectives of these two regional giants.

Has the rapid ownership transformation in Russia had an impact on enterprise performance or on worker behavior and attitudes? This paper investigates this issue using data from a nationwide survey of 1,176 Russian workers conducted in April 1995. We focus on the two primary types of ownership change in Russia: the privatization of existing state-owned enterprises, and the creation (de novo) of new, private organizations. Examining such types of firm behavior as restructuring of product lines, investment in new equipment, changes in internal organization, influences on decision-making, and labor market behavior, we find large and significant differences between privatized and state- owned enterprises, and between new private and all old organizations, controlling for other firm characteristics. Differences in the labor market behavior and attitudes of workers are significant when comparing new and old firms, but less so when comparing privatized to state enterprises. Finally, we analyze the relationship between the ownership of the firm in which an individual works and her political attitudes and voting intentions, finding that employees of the privatized companies tend to be the most anti-reform group while those in new private firms are the most pro-reform.

There are huge discrepancies between the official Chinese and U.S. estimates of the bilateral trade balance. The discrepancies are caused by different treatments accorded to re-exports through Hong Kong, re-export markups, and trade in services. Deficit-shifting between China, on the one hand, and Hong Kong and Taiwan, on the other, due to direct investment in China from Taiwan and Hong Kong, is partly responsible for the growth in the China–United States bilateral trade deficit. The 1995 China–United States bilateral balance of trade in goods and services, adjusted by both re-exports and re-export markups, may be estimated as US$23.3 billion, a large deficit but considerably smaller than the often-cited official U.S. figure of US$33.8 billion.

This report is an expanded version of the executive summary of a much larger report, "Defense Industry Restructuring in Russia: Case Studies and Analysis." Many people contributed to that report, and to the underlying research. In writing that report, we did not attempt to reach consensus among the authors on the interpretations to be drawn from the data.

In this study we have looked at some of the most important elements of restructuring involved in the attempt to generate a viable civilian industrial sector from the assets of the military-industrial complex. Many other reform activities must be implemented at the national level to create the environment and infrastructure necessary for the functioning of a restructured industrial sector. Although not addressed here, they are important and difficult to implement. Another issue that we have not addressed is the pandemic presence of organized crime, which is a huge financial "tax" on economic activity as well as a disincentive to entrepreneurship and investment. I join those who believe that this is the largest single problem threatening the economic stability of Russia today.

The Soviet Union's economy was overindustrialized and highly militarized, with a disproportionate share of the military industry located in the Russian Republic. It is therefore not surprising that industrial production, including military production, has dropped sharply in the economic environment of the last few years. Many enterprises are shrinking, but few are failing completely or going into bankruptcy, and there is little disaggregation of large enterprises into smaller legal entities. Thus, with the exception of privatization, the general profile of Russian industry has not changed greatly.

The creation of new entrants (new business entities), to the extent that it is occurring, is one of the more promising aspects of the economic transition. However, the managers of many of the large enterprises resist divesting themselves of segments of their business. They fear that subsequent capitalization will result in a major reduction of value of the parent because the parent's contribution to the capitalized spin-off will not command much equity. Directors recognize the need for decentralization of management and financial responsibility, but many of them prefer to create divisions rather than subsidiaries. They also try to bring outside investment into the entire large enterprise rather than into a subsidiary. It is difficult for small groups of employees to simply leave and form a new (start-up) corporation because of the lack of commercial and social services infrastructure, especially capital markets, and the lack of rights to use state facilities.

As Japan's newfound economic power leads to increased political power, there is concern that Japan may be turning East Asia into a regional economic bloc to rival the U.S. and Europe. In Regionalism and Rivalry, leading economists and political scientists address this concern by looking at three central questions: Is Japan forming a trading bloc in Pacific Asia? Does Japan use foreign direct investment in Southeast Asia to achieve national goals? Does Japan possess the leadership qualities necessary for a nation assuming greater political responsibility in international affairs?

The authors contend that although intraregional trade in East Asia is growing rapidly, a trade bloc is not necessarily forming. They show that the trade increase can be explained entirely by factors independent of discriminatory trading arrangements, such as the rapid growth of East Asian economies. Other chapters look in detail at cases of Japanese direct investment in Southeast Asia and find little evidence of attempts by Japan to use the power of its multinational corporations for political purposes. A third group of papers attempt to gauge Japan's leadership characteristics. They focus on Japan's "technology ideology," its contributions to international public goods, international monetary cooperation, and economic liberalization in East Asia.