Search

Fast-growing developing countries have emerged as an important destination and source of trade, investments and technology. Furthermore, trade between developing countries has grown rapidly over the last decades, and is becoming more diversified, where exchange includes from primary commodities to manufactures and high-end services. The aim of the special issue is to look at these dynamics and how the leading developing countries have turn into growth engines and technology drivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Green Revolution is often seen as epitomising the dawn of scientific and technological advancement and modernity in the agricultural sector across developing countries, a process that unfolded from the 1940s through to the 1980s. Despite the time that has elapsed, this episode of the past continues to resonate today, and still shapes the institutions and practices of agricultural science and technology. In Brazil, China, and India, narratives of science-led agricultural transformations portray that period in glorifying terms—entailing pressing national imperatives, unprecedented achievements, and heroic individuals or organizations. These "epic narratives" draw on the past to produce meaning and empower the actors that deploy them. Epic narratives are reproduced over time and perpetuate a conviction about the heroic power of science and technology in agricultural development. By crafting history and cultivating a sense of scientific nationalism, exceptionalism, and heritage, these epic narratives sustain power-knowledge relations in agricultural science and technology, which are underpinned by a hegemonic modernization paradigm. Unravelling the processes of assemblage and reproduction of epic narratives helps us make sense of how science and technology actors draw on their subjective representations of the past to assert their position in the field at present. This includes making claims about their credentials to envision and deliver sustainable solutions for agriculture into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the argument that the so-called four BRIC or the five BRICS economies can help rescue the global economy from its current crisis. It reviews the arguments for the positive role of these developing economies and then urges a series of reasons for caution about their capacity to act as an independent element in global economic recovery. It also draws attention to the differences between these economies and the need to consider the way that economic issues are related to geo-political considerations in the global system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper presents an overview of the current status of the main CCS initiatives in the major emerging economies: China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa. This study first covers all six countries as a group and describes their natural resources. The second part of this study embraces each country individually and includes current initiatives and current legal and technological status of CCS. At the end, this study summarizes the main findings in the emerging economies and the potential of including CCS as part of the CDM. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose – The goal of this article is to conduct macro-level analysis of human capital (HC) development strategies, pursued by four countries commonly referred to as BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Design/methodology/approach – This analysis is based on comparisons of macro indices of human capital and innovativeness of the economy and a review of related academic literature and government publications. Findings – The study results suggest that in terms of present human capital capacity Russia and Brazil are ahead of China and India. However, during the last decade the governments of the latter two countries have initiated impressive national programs of HC development, which include significant investment and targeted government regulation in such areas as primary and secondary education, vocational education and training, and higher education, especially in science and technology fields. Russia and Brazil have targeted programs in some of the above areas, but lack comprehensive long-term strategies, covering all the above areas and coordinating effort of various agencies and constituencies. Research limitations/implications – It is recommended to expand the scope of analysis to include other fast growing developing economies (e.g. Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey). Originality/value – The article provides, for the first time, a comparison of human capital development indices and strategies of the four largest developing economies. The original feature of the article is a combination of the analysis of macro-level indices with an in-depth analysis of policy documents and academic literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]