Latest news with #CIS
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Deficit is a worry and right-wing governments aren't going to fix it
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right. The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right. The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right. The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lupin and Zentiva in licence and supply deal for Certolizumab Pegol
Zentiva Group has entered into a licence and supply agreement with pharmaceutical company Lupin for the commercialisation of the latter's biosimilar Certolizumab Pegol, a tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitor medicine, across several markets. The partnership will enhance the availability of the affordable biosimilar on a global scale. Zentiva will manage commercial activities primarily within Europe and CIS markets, excluding the US and Canada. Meanwhile, Lupin will focus on product development, manufacturing, supply of the medicine within the agreed territories and commercial efforts in the remaining regions, including Canada and the US. The collaboration involves investment from both companies. Lupin will receive $10m upon execution of the agreement and could earn up to $50m based on developmental and regulatory milestones. Profits generated within their respective markets will be shared between Zentiva and Lupin. The biosimilar is a recombinant humanised antibody Fab' fragment targeting TNFα, conjugated to a 40kDa polyethylene glycol. Zentiva CEO Steffen Saltofte stated: "Ensuring accessibility to high-quality and affordable healthcare is at Zentiva's core. Our collaboration agreement with Lupin signifies another step forward in our biosimilars and growth strategies. 'Lupin's advanced development and manufacturing capabilities, coupled with our significant market knowledge and presence, mean we can deliver high-quality biosimilar solutions for our customers and their patients, aligning with our purpose of providing health and wellbeing for all generations." The biosimilar is indicated for conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis without X-ray evidence (non-radiographic), moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and Crohn's disease. Lupin president of corporate development Fabrice Egros stated: 'Our global development and commercialisation partnership with Zentiva, with its pan-European focus, enables Lupin to commercialise this unique biosimilar in its core markets and through Zentiva in Europe. 'This partnership underscores our dedication to improving the quality of life for individuals living with chronic conditions and ensuring accessibility and affordability of transformative therapies worldwide.' In March 2025, Lupin entered a licensing and supply agreement with SteinCares to commercialise its biosimilar ranibizumab in Latin American markets excluding Argentina and Mexico. "Lupin and Zentiva in licence and supply deal for Certolizumab Pegol" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Zawya
3 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) holds sensitization session on procurement standard documents to strengthen compliance and operational coherence across institutions
The Directorate of Administration and General Services is currently holding a three-day sensitization meeting on ECOWAS Procurement Standard Documents (the Procurement Code / Manual; Grant Code / Manual, and various Annexes thereof), which are strategic documents intended to ensure consistent interpretation of the documents and their proper application in alignment with international and donor-compliant procurement practices. The Sensitization exercise is to engender clear, uniform understanding and application of the procurement standard documents during procurement processes whilst promoting clarity of Roles, Responsibilities, and Standard Timelines throughout the procurement standard document cycle. For enhanced synergy in the ECOWAS procurement chain across all ECOWAS Institutions, and Offices, participants in this important session include officers/stakeholders from the ECOWAS Commission (Directorates of Finance – B&T / FR&G – ITS, Legal Affairs, Human Resources, Infrastructure); Office of the Auditor-General, Parliament, Court of Justice, WAHO, GIABA); Agencies (ARAA, RCDC, PPDU, ECREEE, Gender Center, Water Resources). The meeting was declared open by the Commissioner for Internal Services (CIS) and moderated by the Director of Administration and General Services (DAGS). Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Medscape
6 days ago
- Health
- Medscape
MHRA Approves New Immunotherapy for Bladder Cancer
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved nogapendekin alfa inbakicept (Anktiva, ImmunityBio) for use in adults with carcinoma in situ (CIS) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) that is unresponsive to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). Approval applies to patients who are either ineligible for or decline cystectomy. Inbakicept is administered in combination with BCG. It is not a replacement for BCG but acts as a complementary agent. The therapy enhances immune system activity by stimulating CD8+ T cells and natural killer cells, while avoiding the activation of regulatory T cells. Durable Response Demonstrated in Clinical Trial The approval was supported by data from the phase 2/3 QUILT-3.032 trial, which enrolled patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS. The trial showed a complete response (CR) rate of 71%, with a median duration of 26.6 months. Among patients achieving CR, 58% maintained it for at least 12 months, and 40% remained disease-free at 24 months. Overall, 62% of patients with CIS achieved CR during treatment. The treatment also demonstrated a significant bladder-sparing effect, with a 90% probability of avoiding cystectomy in responders at 24 months. Treatment involves direct instillation into the bladder via catheter. Patients receive weekly induction doses for 6 weeks, followed by maintenance doses at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Safety Profile The most common adverse events were urinary in nature and included dysuria, haematuria, urinary frequency, and urinary tract infections. Most were mild to moderate in severity. Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, executive chairman and global chief scientific officer at ImmunityBio, said the therapy offers 'a meaningful option for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.' The approval was granted through the International Recognition Procedure, with Serum Life Science Europe GmbH as the marketing authorisation holder. Full prescribing information, including the Patient Information Leaflet and Summary of Product Characteristics, will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval. Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report any adverse events through the Yellow Card scheme.
Entrepreneur
05-07-2025
- Business
- Entrepreneur
BEML Secures $6.23 Million Export Orders from CIS Region and Uzbekistan
The contract from the CIS region marks a continuation of BEML's established presence there, while the Uzbekistan deal marks the company's first foray into that country. You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. BEML Limited, a public sector company under India's Ministry of Defence, has secured two international contracts worth a combined USD 6.23 million, according to a regulatory filing. The deals include the supply of heavy-duty bulldozers to a country in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and a maiden order from Uzbekistan for high-performance motor graders. The orders signal a strategic push by BEML to strengthen its foothold in global markets, particularly in mining and construction equipment. The company has long operated across three key verticals—construction and mining, rail and metro, and defence and aerospace—but these new export wins highlight a growing emphasis on its international reach. "This is a significant win for BEML and a reflection of our growing global competitiveness. Our entry into the Uzbekistan market and continued success in the CIS region reaffirm our strategic vision to become a leading player in the international mining and defence markets," said BEML chairman and managing director Shantanu Roy, as quoted by PTI. The contract from the CIS region marks a continuation of BEML's established presence there, while the Uzbekistan deal marks the company's first foray into that country. Both orders are positioned to support infrastructure development and mining operations in their respective regions. The company has not disclosed the specific countries involved within the CIS bloc, but the total value of the combined contracts reflects a steady upward trajectory in its export performance. The deals also underscore India's intent to expand its state-run industrial footprint globally, especially in sectors where domestic manufacturing has matured. The regulatory filing confirms that the orders are export-specific, reinforcing the company's commitment to scaling its international operations despite challenges in the global economic environment. BEML's expansion strategy appears aligned with broader government efforts to boost defence and heavy industry exports as part of India's "Make in India" initiative.
