About Sebastian PaustSebastian Paust is a senior adviser to the Managing Board of Deutsche Gessellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). He is a member of the International Commission of the German Mittelstand SME Business Association MIT linked to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU parliamentary group. He is a member of the ADBI Advisory Council. He has also served as a member of the GIZ Managing Board, and as a member of the Asian Development Bank Executive Board.
By Sebastian Paust. Posted January 22, 2015
Negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are currently dragging on without a clear time target—no wonder in view of the highly complex topics to agree on. But nevertheless, international speculation is running high about the potential economic and geostrategic implications of the TTIP for the EU’s economic relations with Asia, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in particular. Some people even claim it to be the foundation of an “economic NATO” or consider it “a response to the rise of [the PRC]
By Sebastian Paust. Posted November 20, 2014
The United States’ “pivot to Asia” has been intensely discussed over the last years. But recently, a new pivot model has come up: the Russian Federation’s pivot to Asia. This article analyzes this topic from an economic perspective by asking: Is the Russian economy really about to shift its focus thus far centered on the European Union (EU) to Asia?
By Sebastian Paust. Posted June 20, 2014
German Mittelstand (GM), the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Germany—are a unique and highly successful economic phenomenon that could serve as a model to promote trade and industry for emerging Asia.
By Sebastian Paust. Posted April 18, 2014
Regional integration offers Mongolia the opportunity for a more prosperous future. But the country has lagged in this effort, which is surprising given its geographical location where bold integration initiatives have been launched, such as the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) “Silk Road Initiative,” and where economic alliances have been strengthened under Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) and Shanghai Organisation for Cooperation (SCO).
By Sebastian Paust. Posted April 10, 2014
Central Asia has for centuries been seen as a neglected Russian “backyard,” but international interest in the region has increased over the last two decades because of its vast stores of energy and natural resources. But to achieve a brighter future the region must pursue economic integration. In the early 1990s, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan became independent countries with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The abrupt separation from Moscow, the sudden interruption of economic relations under the Soviet Union, and the unprepared transition from state-directed to market economy created a deep economic crisis in all five countries. The beginning of this century saw their economic systems change and stabilize—but this occurred as these countries disclosed strong authoritarian trends.
Subscribe / Connect to Asia Pathways
- Agriculture and rural development
- Industry and Trade
- Information and Communications Technology
- Poverty Reduction
- Public-Private Partnership
- Regional Cooperation
- Social Development and Poverty
- Video Blog
- Spillover and straw effects of high-speed rail
- Malaysia’s affirmative action should be based on need
- The costs of being overweight and obese in Asia and the Pacific
- Financial development and stability in the People’s Republic of China: Evaluating the policy challenges
- Land trust laws as a solution to the land acquisition dilemma for infrastructure development in Asia
- Minimizing the Cost of Fecal Sludge Management through Co-Treatment on
- Energy Efficiency: The Cornerstone for Achieving SDG 7 on
- Spillover effects of quantitative easing on the Asian credit market and policy options on
- Energy strategies must consider all parts of the ‘energy trilemma’ on
- Exploring the trade–urbanization nexus in developing economies: evidence and implications on