No result found
Committee for Economic Development;
This paper compiles highlights from remarks by participants at the U.S.-Russian Business Dialogue on May 17, 2000. Participants include: Charles Kolb, President, CED; Robert Legvold, Professor of Political Science, Columbia University; George Russell, Jr., Chairman, Frank Russell Company; Peter Charow, Executive Vice President, EastWest Institute and former Vice President for commercial development and Chief Representative, BPA Exploration for BP Amoco in Moscow; Scott Blacklin, President, American Chamber of Commerce; Bernard Sucher, Troika Dialog; Aleksandr Surikov, Economic Senior Counselor, Embassy of the Russian Federation; John Price, Managing Director, Chase Manhattan Corporation; Eugene Lawson, President, U.S.-Russia Business Council; Doug Gardner, Partner, Arthur Anderson, Moscow; Jack Brougher, Director, Russia and Independent States, U.S. Department of Commerce; and John H. Schmidt, Director, Russian Cooperation Program, Boeing.
Pew Research Center;
As Russian troops remain in Ukraine's Crimea region and Crimea's Parliament has set up a secession vote, Americans
prefer the U.S. to not get too involved in the situation. By a roughly two-to-one margin (56% vs. 29%), the public says it is more important for the U.S. to not get involved in the situation with Russia and Ukraine than to take a firm stand against Russian actions.
Rockefeller Archive Center;
This research report specifically focuses on The Ford Foundation, Early Explorations, and Motivations. Historic changes brought about by perestroika, glasnost, and the eventual collapse of the Soviet communist system in the late 1980s and early 1990s offered an unprecedented opportunity for the international community to support transitions to democracy and social transformations in a region that had long known totalitarian rule. Only a few years prior, few could have imagined that democracy's chief global rival -- communism -- would fall so dramatically and so rapidly in the USSR, transforming the day-to-day lives of millions of people who had lived under one-party rule, a command economy, and ideological and institutional control for decades. While financial and technical assistance to support transitions flowed into the region from the governments of industrialized democracies including the United States and many individual member states of the European Community, from international financial institutions, and from multilateral organizations, also among the key institutional players engaged in providing support were U.S. grantmaking institutions.
While 2014 saw a decline in the number and value of Russian million dollar donations, philanthropy remains important in the lives of wealthy Russian individuals and families, as well as in the corporate culture.
This article provides a brief historical review of the centuries of charitable tradition in Russia.
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL);
This report profiles the tax law which effects nongovernmental organisations of the independent states which formerly comprised the Soviet Union. There is information on various kinds of tax including Income, VAT and property tax for twelve different countries.
This study is based on the results of the Transfrontier Cooperation Donor Forum held in St. Petersburg on April 25, 2003 under the EastWest Institute's Regional and Transfrontier Cooperation (RTFC) Program. It contains an overview of transfrontier cooperation in the North-Western Federal District of the Russian Federation and Project Ideas Catalogue. The overview covers the legal framework for TFC, brief TFC-related information on the selected regions, TFC instruments available in the North-West of Russia, donors supporting TFC in the area and transfrontier cooperation in the border regions of Russia's North-West. Additionally, Tacis Cross-Border Small and Micro Project Facilities (the largest and most developed transfrontier cooperation programmes in the North-West of Russia) are examined in more detail. The overview is complemented by the Project Ideas Catalogue (an assessment of transfrontier cooperation needs as understood by local actors).
International Studies Program of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies;
The current mechanism of fiscal equalization in the Russian Federation is complex, unstable and not transparent. In addition, it does not appear to be accomplishing its main goal: the equalization of funds among regions. While major reforms were introduced in 1994, serious problems remain in most areas of inter-governmental fiscal relations. This note addresses the current problems with the Fund for Financial Support of Regions (FFSR) and offers several options for reforming the current mechanism of equalization transfers in the Russian Federation. Working Paper Number 97-02.
International Studies Program of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies;
Governments of all kinds have frequently turned to tax amnesties as part of their fiscal programs. An amnesty typically allows individuals or firms to pay previously unpaid taxes without being subject to some or all of the financial and criminal penalties that the discovery of tax evasion normally brings. In the last twenty years, nearly forty states in the United States have enacted some form of tax amnesty, sometimes more than once. Many other countries have also used one or more amnesties. These countries include those in all parts of the world: in Europe (Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland), Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay), Asia (India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), and the Pacific (Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, the Philippines).
Tax amnesties are a controversial revenue tool. The obvious purpose of a tax amnesty is to raise short-run revenue. This may or may not work, and it can bring about expectations of future amnesties thereby reducing taxpayer compliance after the amnesty. This paper discusses basic design features of an amnesty, evaluates the benefits and costs of an amnesty, examines the country experiences of several "typical" amnesties, and presents some conclusions and recommendations for the introduction of a tax amnesty in the Russian Federation. Working Paper Number 98-06.
Highlights: Russia continues to face challenges in accountability across branches of government, which, in addition to an almost non-existent whistle-blowing culture, serves to increase the power and influence of the ruling political party. While government claims to support a more robust civil society, distinctions are made between domestically and internationally funded non-profit groups. Freedom of the media remains severely restricted in Russia, with the government applying direct pressure on media owners and intimidating journalists. However, Russian public opinion does not rest entirely with the free press movement. Citizens' "paradoxical" relationship with the government and its uneasiness with full democratic change can be seen in a poll noting how "two thirds of Russians are enthusiastic supporters of society's democratic development, but they are not so sure about freedom of the press." There is also a popular mistrust of the judicial system, where all appointments to judicial posts in the last five years have been granted to former members of law enforcement rather than lawyers.
This peer-reviewed country report includes:
Integrity Indicators Scorecard: Scores, scoring criteria, commentary, references, and peer review perspectives for more than 300 Integrity Indicators.
Reporter's Notebook: An on-the-ground look at corruption and integrity from a leading local journalist.
Corruption Timeline: Ten years of political context to today's corruption and integrity issues.
Country Facts: Statistical context for each country.
A review of America's post-Soviet strategy toward Russia is long overdue. The illusions that once guided policy are now at an end. What is needed is a dispassionate approach to Russia, wherein Americans would neither magnify nor excuse the virtues and vices of the Russian Federation but would accept the following realities: Russia is unlikely to become integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community and is unwilling to adjust its foreign policy priorities accordingly; There is broad-based support within Russia for the direction in which Vladimir Putin has taken the country;Russia has undergone a genuine -- if limited -- recovery from the collapse of the 1990s; Washington lacks sufficient leverage to compel Russian acquiescence to its policy preferences; and On a number of critical foreign policy issues, there is no clear community of interests that allows for concepts of "selective partnership" to be effective. Any approach to Russia must be based on realistic expectations about the choices confronting Washington. The United States has two options. It can forgo the possibility of Russian assistance in achieving its key foreign policy priorities in an effort to retain complete freedom of action vis-a-vis Moscow. Or it can prioritize its objectives and negotiate a series of quid pro quos with Russia. The latter choice, however, cannot be indefinitely postponed. Seeking an accommodation with Russia is more likely to guarantee American success in promoting its core national interests while minimizing costs -- but will require U.S. policymakers to accept limits on what can be demanded of Russia.