2022. vol. 17. No. 4

Sociocultural factors have become a priority area in research within the framework of theories of long-term development.This article discusses the parameters of groups of countries (values of survival-self-expression and traditional-secular-rational values) according to the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map, along with other sociocultural andsocio-economic indicators. The significant cumulative advantage (gross domestic product (GDP) per capita) of threegroups of countries—Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and Catholic—compared to the rest reflects a long history of worldprogress. A number of the social parameters of these groups probably reflect their level of development, to which otherfactors have played a role in the long term. A key question addressed in the article is whether sociocultural factorsthat have developed over long periods have a significant impact on the behaviour of countries in the context of moderncrises, and in this case, on the incidence of vaccination in countries in critical conditions. To answer this question,qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis have been conducted using the instance of the COVID-19 pandemicin 2020–21. The hypothesis was tested on an array of 80–94 countries for which there was relevant statistical data.The tables and calculations presented in the article indicate the following results: countries more advanced in thedirection of self-expression values on the Inglehart scale demonstrate higher vaccination scores and lower diseasescores, and those oriented toward secular-rational values have higher rates of suicide than countries with predominantlytraditional views.

The study was carried out as part of the HSE Program for Fundamental Research, as well as with grant support from the HSE Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs in 2022

This article was submitted on 13.09.2022

At the 2021 Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow(COP 26), many leading economies cemented their intention to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century (2050–70). However, the geopolitical and economic crisis of 2022 threatens to reduce the priority of decarbonization policyand postpone the introduction of more restrictive measures. In the face of growing constraints, the choice of climatepolicy instruments becomes even more complex and important. It is necessary to analyze different options from thelow-carbon development policy toolkit to understand their strengths and weaknesses and their potential to be usedto build a comprehensive policy. This article analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of an emissions trading system(ETS) as a tool for direct carbon pricing—a measure that experts from international organizations, as well as theacademic community, believe is essential for achieving climate goals.Despite the fact that carbon taxes (the second option of direct pricing) are easier to implement and administer,many jurisdictions still opt for an ETS. Several factors influence the choice of an ETS as a decarbonization tool: ifoptimally designed, a market-based mechanism provides cost-effective emission reductions, there is potential forlinkage into larger systems, and the flexibility of the instrument may provide additional benefits—China’s nationalETS is a good example of exploiting this flexibility. Political and administrative characteristics (the EuropeanUnion (EU), Germany, the UK, California), Kyoto, Brussels, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) effects (Mexico and other jurisdictions) play an important role in the choice in favour of anETS.The experience of complex and comprehensive low-carbon development strategies already being implementedshows that it is not necessary to place the ETS at the centre, as the cornerstone of policy. The role of an ETS in theentire set of decarbonization measures can be central, supportive, or enabling. They can have different objectives andstimulate not only direct emission reductions, but also technological transformation and energy transition.For Russia as a federal state, conducting pilot projects with different instruments of carbon pricing implementedin different regions seems to be the best solution for the near future in order to find the right instruments for the LowGreenhouse Gas Emissions Development Strategy.

The European Union (EU) is striving to become a world leader in the field of “green economy.” It promotes its own models, standards, conditions, and related positions on climate and environmental policy in other states. Trade agreements, including provisions on climate and the environment, have become one of the instruments of influence on the policy of partners and economic relations with them in the area of climate protection. The inclusion of these provisions is of economic rather than political importance, especially in terms of eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers. The EU has developed a chapter on trade and sustainable development, which includes commitments on environmental and climate protection. As part of its implementation, the EU provides financial and technical support to partners. Nevertheless, the content of the chapter largely depends on the position of the partner and the climate policy it pursues, and in some cases – on the administration of the country. Dispute resolution within the framework of the existing mechanism of the chapter “Trade and Sustainable Development” turned out to be difficult, which prompted the EU to include new settlement options, among which the introduction of trade sanctions is an extreme measure. The article on sustainable forest management is also of economic importance for European producers, and the inclusion of references to international environmental agreements contributes to the EU’s plans to reform the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreements leave out a number of areas of cooperation and require updating as new climate commitments are made, which has been the focus of the EUʼs work in recent years.

Today, a crypto economy is actively developing throughout the globe based on the use of cryptographic technologiesfor the creation of new digital products, including the issuance of digital financial instruments. The topic of regulationof digital financial assets (DFA) is relevant in the world: since 2019, some countries, including Russia, began tointroduce legal norms regarding the issuance of DFA, as well as the sale and turnover of such assets on the market.This article compares approaches to the regulation of DFA in Russia and globally, including the issue of determiningfinancial instruments that will be related to these assets, aspects of the procedure for issuing, storing, and tradingthem, including the basic rights and obligations of issuers and investors in such assets, and the features of the operationof trading floors and platforms for issuing DFA.In general, two approaches to the regulation of DFA can be distinguished. The first approach is the applicationof existing rules to tokenized assets (for example, laws on securities and financial instruments); this approach is usedin the United States. The second is regulation through the introduction of a new framework for the application ofdistributed ledger technology in financial services, for example, in Russia, Germany, Luxembourg, the EuropeanUnion (EU), and Switzerland. This article examines the second approach, which is currently implemented in Russia,to identify differences with foreign regulation, for example, the use of custodian institutions for accounting and storingdigital assets, converting DFA into traditional financial assets, and creating rules for trading digital financial assets.

The article was prepared as part of the research work of the state task of the RANEPA