Foreign Direct Investment in Russia: Stakeholders' Views and Perceptions

Volumes of foreign direct investments (FDI) are growing steadily, however, transition economies, such as Russia, are attracting only a minor share of FDI despite of available potentials. Risk aversion is one of the reasons influencing decision-making processes of FDI investors. This paper reviews existing objective and subjective risks, which impact decisions regarding FDI. The results of the paper are based on the extensive dialogue with stakeholders from Austria, Germany and Japan on the risks for FDI in Russia as well as on the outcomes of the discussions on barriers for trade in frames of the workshop, which brought together Russian and European stakeholders. The results show that political, regulatory, revenue, currency and operational risks within the economy of Russia are perceived by FDI investors from different sectors such as construction, financing, automotive and other industries as being the most likely and probable risks for FDI in Russia. The majority of investors perceive political risks as a greater barrier for investment in Russia. These perceptions are influenced by existing asymmetries on the market and the political decision-making dominance over business environment. Our results support existing evidence on impacts of uncertainties connected with political and regulatory risks for FDI in Russia. However, we did not find evidence that these risk perceptions were affected by creation of the Eurasian Customs Union, neither in positive nor in a negative way. The results suggest that significant progress was already done by improving investment climate in Russia but further efforts are also needed on addressing regulatory risks such as dealing with construction permits, protecting minority investors or simplifying customs regulations, as well as addressing existing market asymmetries

Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe

Technical and institutional capacities are strongly related and must be jointly developed to guarantee effective natural risk governance. Indeed, the available technical solutions and decision support tools influence the development of institutional frameworks and disaster policies. This paper analyses technical and institutional capacities, by providing a comparative evaluation of governance systems in Italy and France. The focus is on two case studies: Naples and Guadeloupe. Both areas are exposed to multiple hazards, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, tsunamis, fires, cyclones, and marine inundations Cascade and conjoint effects such as seismic swarms triggered by volcanic activity have also been taken into account. The research design is based on a documentary analysis of laws and policy documents informed by semi-structured interviews and focus groups with stakeholders at the local level. This leads to the identification of three sets of governance characteristics that cover the key issues of: (1) stakeholders and governance level; (2) decision support tools and mitigation measures; and (3) stakeholder cooperation and communication. The results provide an overview of the similarities and differences as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the governance systems across risks. Both case studies have developed adequate decision support tools for most of the hazards of concern. Warning systems, and the assessment of hazards and exposure are the main strengths. While technical/scientific capacities are very well developed, the main weaknesses involve the interagency communication and cooperation, and the use and dissemination of scientific knowledge when developing policies and practices. The consequences for multi-risk governance are outlined in the discussion

Risk Governance and Vulnerability Factors of Critical Infrastructure

On example of recent multi-risk disasters and their impacts on electricity transmission grids this paper shows the need of multi-risk assessment and governance. It discusses factors of vulnerability of electricity transmission infrastructure in Europe in lights of changing for architecture of electricity grids requirements, growing volumes of renewable energy sources and probabilities for cascading effects. The paper also brings examples of multi-risk assessment and shows algorithm of calculation for multi-risk disasters

Can the BESTGRID process improve stakeholder involvement in electricity transmission projects?

The European Union has set ambitious targets for deployment of renewable energy sources to reach goals of climate change mitigation and energy security policies. However, the current state of electricity transmission infrastructure is a major bottleneck for further scaling up of renewable energy in the EU. Several thousands of kilometers of new lines have to be constructed and upgraded to accommodate growing volumes of intermittent renewable electricity. In many countries, construction of electricity transmission projects has been delayed for several years due to concerns of local stakeholders. The innovative BESTGRID approach, reported here, brings together transmission system operators (TSOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss and understand the nature of stakeholder concerns. This paper has three objectives: (1) to understand stakeholder concerns about the deployment of electricity transmission grids in four pilot projects according to five guiding principles: need, transparency, engagement, environment, and impacts on human health as well as benefits; (2) to understand how these principles can be addressed to provide a basis for better decision-making outcomes; and (3) to evaluate the BESTGRID process based on feedback received from stakeholders and the level of participation achieved according to the ladder of Arnstein. This paper goes beyond a discussion of “measures to mitigate opposition” to understand how dialogue between TSOs and the public—represented mainly by NGOs and policy-makers—might lead to a better decision-making process and more sustainable electricity transmission infrastructure deployment

Some at Risk for COVID-19 Are Reluctant to Take Precautions, but Others Are Not: A Case From Rural in Southern Iran

Little is known about the evaluative and cognitive foundations for adopting preventive measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Recognizing the existence of a gap in the knowledge describing the intention and behavior of participating in health measures, this study investigated the drivers that contribute to the intention to take health protective measures among 305 rural youth from the Dashtestan Region, Bushehr Province, and southern Iran, reached through an online survey. Protection motivation theory (PMT) served as the theoretical framework for the study. It was able to forecast variation in intentions and behaviors with accuracies of 39 and 64%, respectively. Furthermore, the variables of response efficiency, perceived severity, and self-efficacy had a positive and significant effect on protective intentions. Additionally, perceived severity, self-efficacy, and intention produced a positive and significant impression on behaviors, with most of the behavioral variance being accounted for by intention, as was hypothesized. In conclusion, it is suggested that health development including training measures that take account of both the concrete issues of health resources and technologies and of more abstract ones, such as mindset readiness, are important for engagement in positive health care behaviors. Accordingly, training-based interventions for rural youth should be contemplated, with the object of changing their intentions.ISSN:2296-256