The article explores the reasons for failure of modernization of contemporary Ukrainian society hitherto. The conclusion about their deep value nature is grounded. Hence, it is proposed to look for ways of successful modernization based on pivotal cultural and historical traditions that have a consolidating, consensus character for all regions of multicultural Ukraine and for the Ukrainian civil nation as a whole.

Considered the causes and results of the economic achievements of South Korea, which for one generation’s lifetime had managed to leapfrog from poverty to the top of the world’s advanced economies. Analyzed the similarity between the problems of the Republic of Korea, which has been at war with its northern neighbor for more than 70 years, and Ukraine since 2014, as both countries are at the epicenter of strategic conflicts in Eurasia, in which basic interests of world powers collide. Confucianism is analyzed as a model of social and personal relations that has absorbed the wisdom and experience of the millennia-old civilization, demonstrated its exceptional viability, capacity to dynamically modernize and creatively assimilate the achievements of other cultures and civilizations. There is a unique synthesis of values of the two most competitive systems of work ethic in the modern world – Confucianism and Protestantism, which ensured the phenomenal success of the South Korean modernization. It is argued that the very combination of strong socially responsible state, competitive structural democracy and social and labor ethics based on the amalgam of Confucian and Christian values gave effect to the “Miracle on the Han River.” It is shown that Ukraine and South Korea have a common position on the key issues of world order as well as promising bilateral relations, whereas the South Korean experience of economic modernization and development is of interest to Ukraine. Promising areas of Ukrainian-South Korean economic cooperation, such as electronics and IT technologies, renewable energy, aerospace and aviation industry, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and healthcare are substantiated. Ukraine may benefit from the ROK’s positive experience in developing such areas as private entrepreneurship, small and medium business support, that would help practically solve the problem of microcredit and attract investment in the real sector of Ukraine's economy.

No abstract

Bank (AIIB) will soon count 20 EU countries among its members. But how could the EU make the most of this presence in the bank? Apart from direct business opportunities for its private sector, there are strategic, long-term considerations too. It will be imperative that the EU exploit the link between the AIIB and the Belt and Road Initiative and ensure that the bank's functioning remains consistent with EU development standards through a carefully coordinated voice within the institution. EGMONT Royal Institute for International Relations their collaborative efforts recently acquired a new dimension: creation of international bodies from scratch. 1 Most prominent examples include the China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS-launched New Development Bank (NDB) as well as the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Of the three new structures, most analytical attention has focused on the AIIB (proposed unilaterally by China) whose operational phase started in January 2016 with 57 founding members (including 14 from the EU). This policy brief aims to explore how the EU could deal with the institution and, by extension, China"s growing assertiveness in the international system, by engaging the country from within the Beijing-based bank. Arguably, the EU has, in the past decade, gradually come to adopt a more accommodating approach towards China. This has not amounted to the EU letting go of its approach in its external relations as a "normative power". Rather, the 28-country bloc has become more strategic about its engagement with emerging powers, including China. This can, among others, be exemplified by the EU"s pragmatic change of negotiation strategy with the country since the 2009 Copenhagen Summit or, more recently, by the No.

The existence of common features and regularities of the neostructuralist model of modernization in the successfully modernized economies of East Asian countries with different regimes is substantiated. Above all, it is an active “entrepreneurial” role of the state in developing infrastructure as an important factor of production and encouraging, under competitive market environment, export-oriented sectors of the economy based on existing comparative advantages, gradual introducing to competitive positions in domestic and foreign markets the previously established large capital-intensive and high-tech enterprises. A critical prerequisite for success is the state’s proper attention to developing "soft" infrastructure, in particular, ensuring such important components of the "inclusive" economy as respect for property rights, impartiality of commercial courts, wide choice of economic activity, quality education system devoid of class privileges and status barriers, etc. All these components are present in modern highly competitive economies of the Confucian tradition. It is shown that the center-periphery paradigm, reflecting the fractal nature of economic and social networks, organically fits into the theory of the new structural economy at all levels of analysis, strategy, and practical economic policy. Thus, even from a low agricultural start with an active and purposeful structural policy of the state, it is possible to form “cores” of comparative competitiveness, derived from endogenous rather than exogenous factors of economic development. Based on the factor endowment of national economy, enterprises with existing comparative advantages, regardless of whether they belong to the first or sixth technological mode, should be provided by the state with additional incentives (credit, infrastructure, etc.) to enter foreign markets, attract foreign investors, carry out technology transfer. Particular attention is paid to the modernization experience of Poland, whose government since the end of 2016 has been applying in its economic program and policy the theoretical achievements and practical experience of East Asian neostructuralism.