Russia →

Kids Benefit From Having a Working Mom

Women whose moms worked outside the home are more likely to have jobs themselves, are more likely to hold supervisory responsibility at those jobs, and earn higher wages than women whose mothers stayed home full time, according to research by Kathleen McGinn and colleagues. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

Henry A. Kissinger as Negotiator: Background and Key Accomplishments

This paper describes three of the most pivotal negotiations of statesman, scholar, and public intellectual Henry A. Kissinger, born in 1923 to a German Jewish family in Fuerth. These negotiations include the historic establishment of United States diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, the easing of geopolitical tension with the Soviet Union, and the mediation of the agreement on Sinai disengagement between Egypt and Israel. Additionally, the authors of this paper provide a brief summary of Kissinger's biography and career as well as an appendix of his involvement in other important diplomatic negotiations. In a forthcoming paper, the authors will examine these and other major events in which Henry Kissinger played leading roles in order to extract their most important insights into the principles and practice of effective negotiation. Key concepts include: Henry Kissinger played key roles in many important diplomatic negotiations. This paper outlines three in depth. Throughout his time as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Kissinger exerted a strong influence on American foreign policy. In tandem with working for détente with the Soviet Union, he played a central role in helping to end 23 years of diplomatic isolation and mutual suspicion between the United States and China as well as, after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, to orchestrate disengagement agreements between Egypt and Israel as well as Syria and Israel. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

Learning from the Kursk Submarine Rescue Failure: The Case for Pluralistic Risk Management

During a military exercise in August 2000, a state-of-the-art Russian nuclear submarine, the Kursk, sank in the Barents Sea, triggering global media attention and an international rescue effort. In addition to Russia's Northern Fleet, two other organizations got involved in the rescue operation: the UK Submarine Rescue Service and a Norwegian offshore-diving company. Between them, these three parties seemingly had all that was needed to rescue the trapped sailors, yet the entire crew was lost. How did this happen? In this paper, focusing on the multiparty "virtual organization" formed by Russian, British, and Norwegian forces during the Kursk rescue mission, the authors explore the organizational, cultural, and structural origins of coordination failure. Then, reflecting on the limited ability of traditional, diagnostic risk management controls to address the demands of situations such as this, they call for the inclusion of pluralistic control principles into the risk-management practices of complex, multiparty organizations. Key concepts include: Today's complex firms, joint ventures, and other organizational networks deal with significant dispersion in objectives, value systems, evaluative principles, and risk-assessments - as was apparent in the Kursk rescue mission as well. Organizations consisting of multiple parties with competing and often conflicting values and expertise can better manage coordinated action. Technical solutions are not enough. Participants in such situations often disagree on the guiding principles, so there is also a need for leadership to reconcile conflicting values and objectives. A pluralistic control process can resolve conflicting objectives, and can arbitrate between different value systems and competing groups of expertise. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

Big BRICs, Weak Foundations: The Beginning of Public Elementary Education in Brazil, Russia, India, and China

Economists have argued that the "Great Divergence" between the developed and underdeveloped world in the nineteenth century was reinforced—if not caused—by rapid improvements in schooling that occurred in the advanced economies. Explaining differences in economic development today may hinge on understanding why most societies failed to develop adequate primary education in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This study sheds new light on the comparative experiences of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) during the formative years of their primary education systems. Key concepts include: Extreme decentralization in environments without democracy or accountability for local officials may lead to unequal educational outcomes within countries, as elites in certain provinces may choose to spend less on public goods, such as education. Brazil, Russia, India, and China were among the largest and poorest states in the world in the early twentieth century, and their low level of development limited investments in mass schooling. Brazil and Russia—marginally richer and possessing slightly broader forms of elite democracy—saw greater investments in public primary schooling than India and China. Central authorities in each BRIC country mostly absolved themselves of the responsibility of providing primary education. The provision of education was frequently decentralized to lower levels of government, where the absence of accountable and representative democracy allowed local elites to capture political institutions, limit redistributive taxation, and dictate how public resources were allocated. Variation among elites or in the political and economics conditions they faced (whether across space or over time) generated multiple schooling equilibriums across and within BRIC. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

Big BRICs, Weak Foundations: The Beginning of Public Elementary Education in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, 1880-1930

In deducing why some nations are more developed than others, it makes sense to look at their educational systems. While comparative studies on the subject focus either on developed nations or on differences between developed and developing economies, this paper hones in four of the largest developing nations at the turn of the twentieth century: Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC). Research was conducted by Aldo Musacchio of Harvard Business School, Laktika Chaundhary of Scripps College, Steven Nafziger of Williams College, and Se Yan of Peking University. Key concepts include: BRIC comprised half of the world's population in 1900, but only 14, 21, 9, and 4 percent of school-age children in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, respectively, were enrolled in primary school, compared with more than 75 percent in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In BRIC, decentralized political structures and lack of accountability led to situations in which public resources were funneled to educate the elites. Meanwhile, poor communities had to rely on insufficient private contributions to fund their schools. However, in many areas, the elites supported the expansion of mass education, either because they wanted to produce skilled labor for their companies or because they perceived political benefits from an educated population. Their results explain why it has been so hard for BRIC countries to catch up with the education levels developed countries in the twentieth century. While the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom had two hundred years to get to their current levels of education, BRIC countries had a late start. Additionally, the paper highlights the importance of having centralized education balancing education deficiencies in distant localities or in provinces in which elites that are not interested in educating the masses capture the government. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

The Profits of Power: Commercial Realpolitik in Eurasia

The concept of good old-fashioned realpolitik-politics primarily shaped by practicality and power-has returned to Europe, clashing with the traditional ideologies of the European Union, says Harvard Business School professor Rawi Abdelal. Citing supporting evidence from the Russian gas giant Gazprom, he argues that scholars need to pay better attention to the role of large corporations in international relations. Key concepts include: Corporate firms, not states, are responsible for the return of realpolitik in Europe. The international political economy needs a better understanding of the role that these firms play in world politics. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

From Russia with Love: The Impact of Relocated Firms on Incumbent Survival

The relocation of the machine tool industry from the Soviet-occupied zone of postwar Germany to western regions is a unique laboratory for studying the impact of industrial structures on incumbent survival. Typically, geographic agglomerations of similar firms offer benefits to each member firm by reducing the transportation costs for material goods, specialized workers, and industry knowledge among the firms. Of course, tight geographic concentration comes with countervailing costs as firms compete for local inputs. In this paper, HBS professor William R. Kerr and coauthors study the impact of increased local concentration on incumbent firms by considering postwar Germany, when the fear of expropriation (or worse) in the wake of World War II prompted many machine tool firm owners to flee to western Germany, where they reestablished their firms. Key concepts include: Relocations significantly increased the likelihood of incumbent failure, which suggests that the costs of increased competition for local inputs dominated the potential benefits from agglomeration economies. By contrast, during the same postwar period, new start-up entrants—whose location choices were more opportunistic—were not associated with increased incumbent failure rates. The increased failure rates of incumbents in western Germany due to relocating firms was concentrated in regions where labor forces were constrained due to low inflows of expellees from eastern Germany. In regions with a significant inflow of expellees and favorable input conditions, there was no effect of relocations on incumbent firms' risk of failure. The relocation of the machine tool industry from eastern to western Germany was substantial. In total, a fifth of the industry present in eastern Germany migrated during a narrow window of 1949-1956, representing an 8 percent increase in total industry size for the receiving zones. These location choices were made under extreme duress, with little regard to existing business conditions across regions in western Germany. Upon arrival, the relocating firms substantially impacted local industrial conditions as they quickly regained much of their former production capacity. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.