Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry Core Insights - The MENA Climate Governance database project evaluates climate-related policies in MENA countries, focusing on national institutional, regulatory, and legal frameworks [1] - The methodology assesses countries based on sound climate policies and good governance practices [2] - The analysis draws on key documents such as the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report and the World Bank's Reference Guide to establish criteria for evaluating climate governance [3] Summary by Sections Climate Strategy - The evaluation criteria for sound climate policy include long-term targets (by 2050-2060), immediate targets (by 2030), foundational targets, addressing risks and vulnerabilities, mitigation strategies, and adaptation measures [4][5] - Vulnerability is defined as the impact of climate events on social, economic, and infrastructural capacity, while risks arise from vulnerability, hazard, and exposure [4] Governance Tools - The analysis focuses on internal policies, evaluating institutional, regulatory, and legal frameworks, while excluding international cooperation and non-state actors [7] - Governance tools include laws and regulations that create a legal framework for climate agendas and budgetary allocations for clean energy and environmental protection projects from 2016 to 2024 [7] - The evaluation criteria for governance tools include institutional mandates, management authority, actionable goals, political processes, capacity of actors, human capacity, transparency, accountability, representation, financial capacity, and oversight [8][9][10][11]

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry discussed Core Insights - The report outlines three competing strategies for U.S. AI export policy: control, diffusion, and leverage, each with distinct implications for U.S. foreign policy and economic strategy [6][10][51] Summary by Sections Introduction - The U.S. faces a critical decision on how widely to share its AI technologies, with emerging economies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE becoming influential players in the AI landscape [6][8] A Strategy of Control - This strategy aims to prevent the diffusion of advanced AI technology outside a select group of U.S. allies, focusing on export controls and licensing requirements [13][14] - Proponents argue that controlling AI technology is essential for national security, as breakthroughs could significantly alter the global balance of power [15][22] - The strategy emphasizes the risks of sharing AI infrastructure with countries that may not align with U.S. interests, citing potential theft and misuse of technology [17][18] A Strategy of Diffusion - Advocates for this strategy argue against restricting AI technology, emphasizing the benefits of rapid development and global entrenchment of U.S. technologies [25][27] - This approach supports open-source AI systems and opposes new authorities that could limit technological exports, arguing that export controls could undermine U.S. competitiveness [29][30] - Proponents believe that the U.S. should embrace competition and focus on establishing first-mover advantages in global AI markets [32][36] A Strategy of Leverage - This middle-ground approach seeks to use AI exports as a bargaining tool to achieve geopolitical and technological concessions from other countries [40][42] - It suggests conditioning access to U.S. AI technologies on countries adopting specific security measures or supporting U.S. foreign policy objectives [44][46] - The strategy aims to balance the protection of U.S. technologies while promoting their adoption globally, aligning with a transactional approach to foreign policy [46][49] Conclusion - All three strategies have their advocates and are likely to influence U.S. AI policy under the incoming administration, with the debate over the best approach continuing amid evolving technological and geopolitical landscapes [51][54]

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry Core Insights - The Indian American community has grown to over 5.2 million, making it the second-largest immigrant group in the U.S. and a significant political force due to demographic growth and professional success [4] - In the 2024 elections, Indian Americans are notably influenced by the candidacy of Kamala Harris, the first major candidate of Indian heritage for the presidency [4] - Despite a historical preference for the Democratic Party, there is a modest increase in support for Republican candidate Donald Trump among Indian Americans, particularly among younger men [6][7] Summary by Sections Survey Overview - The 2024 Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS) was conducted with 714 Indian American citizens from September 18 to October 15, 2024, with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent [19][20] Party Identification and Political Ideology - 47% of Indian Americans identify as Democrats, down from 56% in 2020, while 21% identify as Republicans and 26% as independents [23][27] - 55% of respondents place themselves on the left side of the ideological spectrum, with 15% identifying as extremely liberal [30][31] Voting Behavior - 60% of Indian American citizens plan to vote for Kamala Harris, while 31% intend to vote for Donald Trump [34][39] - There is a notable gender gap, with 67% of Indian American women supporting Harris compared to 53% of men [48] Evaluation of Political Leadership - 36% of respondents strongly approve of President Biden's performance, with approval rates varying significantly by party affiliation [64] - The survey utilized a feeling thermometer to gauge favorability towards various political figures, including Biden, Harris, and Trump [67]

OCTOBER 2024 Trade Intervention for Freer Trade Michael Pettis and Erica Hogan Trade Intervention for Freer Trade Michael Pettis and Erica Hogan © 2024 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved. Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any me ...

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry discussed Core Insights - Ethiopia and Sudan experienced significant democratic openings in 2018 and 2019, respectively, which presented opportunities for U.S. support for democratization, but ultimately failed to lead to democratic consolidation and descended into civil wars [5][9] - The U.S. government missed opportunities to support peaceful democratic change and exacerbated conflict drivers through exclusionary and short-sighted policies [5][9] - The report emphasizes the need for the U.S. to better seize opportunities for democracy, aligning policies with high-level commitments and recognizing the role of emerging powers [5][10] Summary by Sections Introduction - The U.S. faces challenges in supporting democratic openings in fragile and conflict-affected states, particularly in the context of a global democratic recession and competing interests [8] Four Key Lessons - The report outlines four key lessons for U.S. policymakers: align policy with high-level commitment, factor in the role of emerging powers, recognize underlying structural factors, and prioritize inclusivity [10][11] Ethiopia - Ethiopia's democratic opening was marked by significant reforms under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, but internal political fragmentation and external influences complicated the transition [33][39] - The U.S. response to Ethiopia's opening was characterized by a lack of high-level commitment and insufficient resources, leading to missed opportunities for supporting democratization [50][52] Sudan - Sudan's democratic opening faced similar challenges, with the U.S. failing to adequately engage with emerging powers and misreading the political landscape, which contributed to the eventual coup [10][21] - The report highlights the importance of recognizing structural factors and the need for inclusive policies to support democratic transitions in both countries [25][30] Conclusion - The report concludes that the U.S. must learn from these cases to improve its approach to supporting democratic openings in the future, emphasizing the importance of commitment, inclusivity, and understanding local contexts [5][10]

Investment Rating - The report does not provide a specific investment rating for the industry Core Insights - The Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection represents a significant shift in the approach to managing migration in the Western Hemisphere, emphasizing shared responsibility and cooperation among countries [5][8][52] - The declaration's three-pronged approach focuses on stabilizing displaced populations, expanding legal pathways for migration, and ensuring humane border enforcement [7][61] Summary by Sections Introduction - The report discusses the adoption of the Los Angeles Declaration in June 2022, marking a collective response to migration challenges in the Americas, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic [5][6] Background - The report outlines the historical context of migration in the Americas, highlighting the Venezuelan migration crisis as a catalyst for the declaration [10][11] The Proposal - The proposal for a regional migration pact was initiated following a significant migration incident in Del Rio, Texas, in September 2021, which underscored the need for a coordinated response [25][24] The Negotiations - The negotiations leading to the declaration involved extensive discussions among leaders from the Western Hemisphere, culminating in a consensus on a new migration framework [29][30] Building the Architecture for Implementation - The report details the establishment of a framework for implementing the commitments made under the LA Declaration, including the appointment of special coordinators from each signatory country [59][60] The Role U.S. Leadership Played in Advancing the LA Declaration - U.S. leadership was pivotal in facilitating the adoption of the LA Declaration, with significant diplomatic efforts to garner support from regional leaders [25][30] Conclusion - The LA Declaration is viewed as a transformative step in managing migration in the Americas, with ongoing efforts to ensure its implementation and effectiveness [54][56]

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry discussed Core Insights - The report emphasizes the need for a reimagined global economic governance system that is more equitable and representative, particularly from an African perspective [5][7] - It highlights the challenges faced by African countries in accessing development financing and the need for reforms in international financial institutions [45][46] - The report discusses the importance of addressing climate change and the energy transition as critical components of economic governance [18][19] Summary by Sections Introduction - The report outlines a conference held in June 2024 that focused on the inadequacies of the current global economic governance system, particularly in addressing the needs of African nations [5][6] Africa: New Economic Paradigms - The legacy of neoliberalism continues to impact Africa, but there are opportunities for growth through technology and renewable energy [8][10] Managing Climate Change and the Energy Transition - Africa faces significant financial challenges related to climate change, with projected losses rising from $7 billion in 2022 to $50 billion by 2030 [18] - The report argues that climate financing is a moral obligation of wealthier nations towards Africa [19][20] Combating Illicit Financial Flows - Illicit financial flows cost Africa approximately $88.6 billion annually, which is nearly 2.9% of the continent's GDP [25] - Addressing these flows could significantly enhance domestic resource mobilization [26][29] Managing Migration in the Global Economy - The report discusses the need for improved global governance of migration to enhance economic benefits for both sending and receiving countries [31][32] The Digital Usage Gap and Global Inequality - Emerging technologies present both opportunities and challenges, with the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities if not managed properly [38][39] An African Agenda for Global Economic Reform - The report advocates for a unified African agenda to reform global economic governance, emphasizing the need for increased representation in international financial institutions [44][47] The Global Economic Order Beyond Western Hegemony - Participants discussed the need for a shift away from Western-dominated global governance structures to a more inclusive system [52][53] - The emergence of BRICS and other coalitions is seen as a potential pathway to achieving this goal [56][57]

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry discussed Core Insights - The report introduces the concept of "if-then commitments" as a framework for mitigating risks associated with AI, particularly in the context of potential catastrophic outcomes related to chemical and biological weapons [5][7][10] - It emphasizes the importance of proactive measures by AI developers and regulators to ensure that risk mitigations are in place before deploying advanced AI models [5][6][8] - The report highlights the collaborative efforts of industry leaders like Google DeepMind, OpenAI, and Anthropic in establishing frameworks for AI safety and risk management [6][19] Summary by Sections Introduction - The report outlines the potential catastrophic risks posed by AI to international security, particularly in the development of weapons of mass destruction [5] - It discusses the need for a framework that allows for the rapid assessment and mitigation of risks without stifling technological advancement [5][8] Walking Through a Potential If-Then Commitment in Detail - An example of an if-then commitment is provided, focusing on the capability of AI to assist in the production of chemical or biological weapons [9][10] - The report discusses the challenges of ensuring that AI models do not provide harmful advice and the importance of operationalizing these commitments effectively [12][14] Operationalizing the Tripwire - The report details how to identify tripwire capabilities that would necessitate additional risk mitigations, emphasizing the need for robust evaluation methods [24][25] - It discusses various approaches to testing AI capabilities to determine proximity to these tripwires [24][30] Applying this Framework to Open Model Releases - The report raises concerns about the risks associated with releasing powerful AI models as open-source, suggesting that if-then commitments could help manage these risks [39][40] The Path to Robust, Enforceable If-Then Commitments - The report outlines a timeline for the development and implementation of if-then commitments, emphasizing the need for collaboration among AI companies, safety institutes, and policymakers [52][53]