No 3 (2023)

The article aims to show the differences in regional economic development in the US in the beginning of 3-rd decade of 21st Century. The author presents the reasons and consequences of accelerated growth of several fastest-growing US cities, provides estimations of their economic prospects for foreseeable future. It is indicated that the major factors of accelerated growth of these cities are continued shift away from low-tech to high-tech industries, the continues movement of the US population toward the South and West, and a recovery of the leisure and hospitality sectors after Covid-19 pandemic.

The article examines four cases of the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from international arms control agreements in the first two decades of the 21st century from the legislative branch perspective. Each of the four precedents is analyzed through the resolutions, which were submitted by legislators, in order to determine the difference in the approaches of Democrats and Republicans to arms control issues. Also, the paper discusses the constitutionality of presidential action and the exercise of congressional constitutional authority in the circumstances of the U.S. withdrawals from international agreements.

Multilateralism and minilateralism are the main mechanisms of global governance. Multilateralism is characterized by membership inclusiveness, a low entry threshold for new members, and a focus on universality, while minilateralism is characterized by membership exclusivity, a high entry threshold for new members, and no focus on universality. Contemporary multilateral institutions emerged after World War II under the influence of American hegemony. The US commitment to multilateralism in global governance has been inconsistent, setting the stage for the current crisis of multilateral global governance. The aforementioned crisis can be explained by the problems of American leadership, the emergence of a polycentric power configuration of the world, as well as specific actions of both the hegemon and other great powers. The issue was fueled by the increasingly evident problems of ineffectiveness of the core global institutions in dealing with pressing problems, deadlocks in multilateral negotiations and the lack of representation of developing countries in global governance. The failure of the main actors to respond to these challenges has led to the proliferation of the minilateralist mechanism of global governance. Two types of minilateralism in global governance are distinguished - clubs of the most significant states (the first type) and communities of like-minded states (the second type). The main advantage of the first type of minilateralism is the ability to solve global problems with minimal effort. Minilateralism of the second type is positively distinguished by its homogeneous structure and cohesion of the ranks. The main advantages of minilateralism in general include flexibility, adaptability, plasticity, quick decision-making, free, open and effective negotiations and resource saving. The main disadvantages of minilateralism are low legitimacy, limited technical and financial capabilities, lack of transparency and accountability, vagueness of goals and lack of focus. The first type of minilateralism is able to somewhat increase the effectiveness of interaction within the global institutions by reducing the number of parties involved, but it is unlikely to be able to overcome the core source of ineffectiveness of global governance, which is the mistrust between the main actors. The main disadvantage of the second type of minilateralism is the fragmentation of international regimes. The emergence of the minilateral competitors can both motivate the established institutions to reform and demotivate states to participate in multilateral global governance. Minilateralism will continue to play a large role in global governance. The disadvantages of minilateralism can be mitigated by combining it with the multilateralist mechanism, using a more rigorous approach to the selection of participants, goal setting and the implementation of agreements, and introducing a system of indirect representation.

Regulatory changes in any branch of the real sector of the economy have a strong impact not only on a wide range of consumer characteristics of finished products, but also directly on the business itself engaged in its production. The automotive industry, one of the most important in the structure of the US economy, is no exception; at least the last three US presidents have paid close attention to its support and transformation. Barack Obama was directly involved in saving the Big Three companies from bankruptcy during the years of the global financial crisis, and Donald Trump, who canceled some of the environmental regulations introduced by his predecessor, practically forced the leaders of automakers to return car production from other countries to the United States. This article analyzes the economic policy of the cabinet of the current 46th US President Joseph Biden in relation to the country's auto industry, its impact on the business of automakers, the US energy infrastructure, the country's domestic auto market, and also considers additional mechanisms that could further support the transformation and development US automotive industry.