The article reviews history and contemporary state of such an economic and trade policy phenomenon as regionalism. Three consecutive stages of regionalization are identified. First stage – prehistory of regionalism – lasted from the middle of the XIX century till 1940-s and was characterized by the formation of bilateral customs unions in Europe with strong political motivation. Second stage – classic regionalism – covers the second part of the XX century and is mostly determined by integration processes in the European region, creation of the EEC and then the EU, organization of a big number of alliances among developing countries mainly in the form of customs union following the EU example and some trade blocs between developed economies beyond the EU (i.a. NAFTA). In this period special disciplines for RTA’s were elaborated under the framework of GATT/WTO. Third stage – globalizing networking regionalism – gained momentum at the start of 2000-s and continues, with certain reservations, till nowadays. Contemporary regionalism has qualitative distinctions from regionalism of the past century. Besides fast and universal, covering all regions and subregions of the world, growth of RTA’s number, their agenda is widening and deepening significantly going far beyond WTO. We could also witness increasing frequency of interregional and transcontinental RTA’s, as well as RTA’s with participation of trade blocks, including interbloc RTA’s. Peculiarity of the current decade is the appearance of a considerable number of RTA’s parties to which represent large and largest world economies, and that was not the case before. But the principal shift is related to the formation of megaregional trade agreements with ambitious, prointegration agenda. New generation RTA’s, containing wide regulatory garmonization agenda and suggesting increasing institutional homogenity of participating economies, de facto promote alternative vis-à-vis classic approach model for the creation of common economic space, though without supranational elements. Nowaday regionalism is definitely drifting towards megaregionalism – the higher stage of regionalization process. Politics of the new American administration and Brexit, which stimulated deglobalization and isolationist tendencies in part of Western world, in practice have only led to some regrouping and deceleration of certain megaregional projects followed by enhancing China’s position on the track of megaregionalism (RCEP, Belt and Road, megaproject with accompanying RTA’s, latest BRICS+ and BRICS++ initiative). Megaregionalism, under any scenario, will exert deep influence on the world trading system and the WTO. In certain conditions megaregional agreements could serve as the foundation for the emergence of new and by large universal system of global management in the sphere of international trade and economic cooperation either as a WTO plus arrangement or in some other form. But this needs long-lasting preparatory interaction for the convergence and finding common denominators between quite different megaprojects as regards their scope and depth.

Nowadays integration could be considered as worldwide-political phenomenon with its multielement structure. The growing integratedness allows the little and medium states to build a constructive conversation with important players, equalize the growth rates, life quality as well as to contribute to settlement of international conflicts. This article deals with the theory and methodology of Economic Integration in Europe. The author investigates the roots of integration processes in after-war period in Europe. With establishment of European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 the integration became a key element of international policy. The author revises the evolution of the Integration theory from implementing of “federalism” term till development of comparative integration area in international relations science. The author used original foreign and Russian sources for preparing the current article.

Transcontinental partnerships – Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TATIP) – have been analyzed in view of the new challenges in polycentric world, US foreign economic policy changes, risks for the national economies of the block’s participants, as well as for the other countries. The TPP and the TATIP are in focus as the new stage of the world integration process. The TATIP can deepen the already substantial economic ties between the US and the European Union. But what will be included in the chapters of the agreement on financial services, agricultural products, some other sectors is still subject to debate. Particular concerns arise about the role for the TATIP in harmonizing financial regulation. The practical implementation of president Donald Trump plans to «promote American industry, protect American workers» began with the US withdrawal from the TPP, with negotiating new bilateral trade deals in mind. Since that decision, the leaders of Japan, Singapore, Australia, and other TPP participants emphasized the strategic importance of this agreement for their countries and for US leadership in the region. Withdrawing from the TPP raises concerns among US trade partners and allies in the region and put many questions before them. Besides, US withdrawal from the TPP effectively gives green light to assert a more pronounced leadership role in the region for China, which is already a major trade and investment partner for TPP countries. Furthermore, Donald Trump turned attention to certain imports as a threat to national security and thus potentially subject to steep tariffs. The US steps in this way may undermine the rules-based trading system, and put many questions before TPP partners and other countries. Whether import restrictions for national security reasons be implemented, they may damage not only China as the main U.S. imports driver; but other countries as well, and lead to new barriers against US exports by trading partners. The Trump administration initiatives not only represents a challenge for countries that linked closely to the American economy due to the trade-economic agreements, but leads to new opportunities and choices in international economic relations.

Regionalization of migration is not a new phenomenon, which is developing alongside its globalization. The globalization of migration driven by the increased migration interdependence between labor-surplus and laborshortage countries, is manifested in the growth of the number of countries participating in the population exchange and the number of international migrants, foundation of the support framework of the global migration governance, etc. At the same time, the level of liberalization of migration flows is significantly lower than that of commercial and financial flows. The territorial mobility is reducing, that may be seen as a symptom of the attenuation of globalization of people’s movements. The aggravation of contradictions between sending and receiving countries hinders the development of global migration governance. In contrast the regionalization of migration has been increasing markedly over the previous decades. It is being revealed in the growth of people’s movements on the territories of the global North and even more in areas of the South which house more migrants from the developing regions of the world than the North. The enlargement of regional flows leads to the emergence of the major donors of migrants in the North and major recipients of migrants in the South as well as enhances the relevance of the consequences of emigration for the sending countries in the North and the effects of immigration for the receiving countries in the South. The low efficiency of unilateral measures of migration governance and the lack of global partnership in this field make increasingly important the regulation of population movements at the sub-global level. The cooperation between the countries concerned is being carried out both in a formal format within the integration associations and by means of informal regional consultative process. The rules governing migration issues are being increasingly included into regional multilateral agreements. The most developed regional regulation system of migration is created have within the EU, followed with a wide margin by the MERCOSUR, ЕАEU and ASEAN. Although the regional consultative process is not binding for participating countries, it contributes to moving from de facto to de jure policy coherence in migration governance. Given the inevitable obstacles to the territorial expansion of such regional organizations and to the creation of global alliances modelled on them, regional migration regulation will remain an integral element of the architecture of the future global governance.

Latin American countries were the first in the developing world on the path of economic integration. In the region, back in the early 1960’s were created the integration groupings, with the aim of strengthening trade ties between the neighboring States and their position in the world economy. As a result, the integration process has been going on for about six decades, transforming the economies of Latin America. Integration largely determines the main vectors of development of foreign trade relations, affects the direction of cross-border investment flows, strengthens corporate relationships and the emergence of various forms of production cooperation, stimulates scientific and technological cooperation, “pushes” the countries of the region towards closer political interaction. At the same time Latin American integration appears a complex and contradictory phenomenon, its history has known periods of high activity and long pauses, reversals, attempts by individual States to revise the rules of the game, receive unilateral benefits. In recent years, the integration process in Latin America acquires new features and characteristics, increasing its importance for the social and economic future of the region.

This article examines the influence of macroeconomic factors in the capital structure of subsidiaries of foreign multinational companies (SFM) in Brazil by comparing them with local Brazilian companies (LBC) during the period from 1998–2008. Panel data econometrics was used to analyze the data and test the hypotheses. During this period, exchange rate variation was positively associated with local leverage, which supported the hypothesis of income hedging in the context of foreign currency exposure of the head office. We also found less local leverage for foreign multinational companies when the macroeconomics scenario became more stable. Finally, contrary to the initial hypothesis, differences in financing rates between Brazil and the SFMs’ head office country were positively related to local leverage.

The paper focuses on the socioecnomic development of Brazil from the mid-1990s up today. The author puts a special attention to the process of deindustrialisation, which has been expressed in the diminishing share of manufacturing industry in GDP, employment and the structure of goods’ export whereas the role of the primary sector increases in economy and the external trade. The paper scrutinises the achievements of Brazil in reduction of poverty and social inequality, in development of education and enlargement of the social mobility’s channels. At the same time, the author argues that the model of development, apparently successful in 2003–2012, has exhausted itself in the changed conditions. It presupposed the balance of different interests, but this balance has been destroyed. Meanwhile, the social forces that could realise a transition to the new model of development have been weaker than the forces interested in exportation of commodities. The author treats political events in the country in 2015–2017, including the impeachment to Dilma Rousseff, as the counteroffensive of conservative forces in the context of Lava Jato (“car-wash”) corruption scandal which has shaken the fundaments of Brazil’s political system. The main conclusion the author makes from his analysis is that any exit from the deep crisis the country undergoes now will be long and painful.

Migration challenges facing the EU aggravated many internal contradictions of the union. The Visegrad Group and its actually common policy in relation to refugees is a reflection of a part of current processes within the EU. Although formal institutions are not formed, the countries of the V4 are regulating migration questions on a regional level involving the neighboring countries during more than two years. The article is devoted to a research of the Visegrad Group’s actions in conditions of the European migration crisis that includes participation in pan-European measures to tackle refugee’s inflow and initiatives of the Visegrad Group itself and its member countries. Although Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are affected differently by the migration crisis, all countries were able to develop a common position in relation to inflow of refugees. The key position of the countries became a rejection of the European resettlement scheme and quota allocation. So far, despite the pressure from the European Commission and the criticism from several international organizations the V4 does not intend to take part in the quota system. The current migration crisis did not cause disagreement and weakening of the Visegrad Group, as several experts sometime say. On the contrary, the existing challenges gave an opportunity to this sub-regional group to be more heard at the EU level. Slovakia’s presidency of the EU Council in the second half of 2016 played a part in this process, in which Slovakia tried to transfer ideas of the sub-regional grouping to an all-European level. The article provides a substantiation of the Visegrad Group’s vision of migration problems based on both socio-economic and political factors. It is possible to single out the orientation in the immigration policy mainly not in the countries of Africa and the Middle East, where the main flow of refugees is coming from. The lower level of socio-economic development of the V4’s countries compared to others members of the EU makes the Visegrad Group into transit territory. The political forces are important also, which currently head the countries of the Visegrad Group and are opponents of mass migration.

The article deals with the main purposes, opportunities and risks of the Republic of Korea’s involvement in integration projects. The author stresses the basic principles of South Korean foreign economic strategy, including common views of the different president administrations on key foreign economic priorities, including constant support of business expansion towards the most prominent markets. The analysis focuses also on new methods of support of national business interests: the transition from rigid defense of domestic market to adoption to growing competition at home as far as foreign partners agreed to open their markets to South Korean export. The paper describes role of bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and regional mega-projects in South Korea’s foreign economic diplomacy. Comparison study of bilateral Free Trade Agreements between the Republic of Korea on the one side, European Union, the USA and China on the other sides. The author characterizes growing role of China and other East Asian countries for South Korean economy the ROK-China Free Trade Agreement, including some obstacles and limitations to upgrade development of bilateral economic exchanges. Special attention paid to positive and negative factors, influenced on economic integrations between China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. The paper describes Seoul’s interests in economic integration projects in East Asia, including involvement in joint economic projects with ASEAN. The author analyses the Republic of Korea’s attitude to regional mega-projects in Asia-Pacific region such as Trans-Pacific Partnership. Finally the article describes modern stage and possible development of Russia-South Korea economic relations and contains forecast of the main trends of the Republic of Korea’s involvement in integration projects in East Asia and in Asia-Pacific region in general.

Is such phenomenon as Shadow Economy possible in the Arab (Muslim) countries? In terms of scientific approach as the presence of positive (legal) economy will always have its antipode – the presence of negative (shadow or illegal) economy and no matter which country will have these economic types. Of course, the percentage of legal and shadow economy varies in different countries. At the same time, the volumes of shadow economy are independent of the main religion professed by the population or of the part of the world where the country is situated (countries with Islam as the main religion have a less volume of shadow economy in comparison with countries having Christianity as a predominant religion, and the richest oil countries in the MENA region have bigger volumes of shadow economy than some Western European countries). The causes of shadow economy and the prerequisites of its inception are largely the same by its socio-economic nature. The sources of economical problems lie in the imbalance between limited resources at the disposal of people or a state and in the open-endedness of ever-growing needs of economic agents. It is precisely on these contradictions numerous financial and economic crises appear. It may also be noted that the wish to possess the largest possible quantity of resources leads to the foreignpolicy struggle between countries which results in wars, conflicts, economic sanctions. Recently, the countries of Arab East have been experiencing systemic crisis. Over the past 10 years economic benefits have been redistributed, the map of the region has been redrawn, and moral guidelines of the society have been shifting. This is acutely seen in the events taking place in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Islamic financial institutions and markets, which were less of a financial and more of moral and ethical basis of the Arab countries, currently are taking an exam on “stress tests”. Countries devastated by wars, crisis in oil monarchies, unemployment, enormous migration flows, “black market” growing at a geometric rate – can all these humanistic and social guidelines, which Islamic scientists focus on in the relationships between people, people and authorities, people and God, prevail all this? The transformation of shadow economy in the Arab Region sharply has taken place over the past 10 to 15 years, partly due to the interference of Major Powers (statistics on the economy clearly demonstrate that before the events of Arab Spring and military conflicts non-oil-producing Arab countries had an enormous potential of development on key indicators). The middle class, the business community of Arab countries adapts to circumstances arising in today’s realities carrying out its activities in the shadow or quasi-legal sector of the economy. They don’t feel support from the state concerned about issues of the maintenance of stability by introducing tough tax, control and restrictive measures. In this regard probably appropriate phrase: “One does what one must to survive!” Regional Powers fight for their political and economical independence, the population of these Powers live to work and secure any future to themselves and their families. The issues of the shadow economy do not fall within economic relationships, they are relevant to social or spiritual relationships which are transforming in the modern world regardless of the value of taxes collected or level of GDP.

The article is dedicated to the policy of India in the processes of regionalization in Asia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union (a country, which used to be the main ally of India) there appeared a great need for India to make a deep revision of its geo-economic and geopolitical paradigms. Thus, Delhi started looking for the new strategic partners in order to restore the balance between India and extremely active China. The “Look East Policy” had become the first result of those searches, because of the long history of cultural and political influence of India on the South-East Asian countries. Apart from it, due to the active participation of India in the region, the member states of the ASEAN were aimed to set a balance in relationships with China in Asia-Pacific region. By developing the partnership with the members of ASEAN and participating in the processes of regional economic integration, India attempts to “push” the economic development of its northeastern states, situated separately from the main (“continental”) part of the country. Although there are some achievements, regarding the participation of India in the processes of regional integration, the country’s economy is still only partially integrated in the production “chains” in the ASEAN countries. Moreover, there are significant obstacles regarding the economic integration in the South Asia. They appear because of the fear, experienced by the countries of the region, regarding the Indian predominance in the region. Besides, strategically those countries consider contradictions between India and China as a situation from which they potentially may benefit. During the last decades, there has been a rising importance of the Western Asian region in strategic economic activities of India. From the Western Asia India gets energy carriers and due to the financial transfers made by the Indians, working in the Persian Gulf, it covers country`s balance of payment deficit.