IWS Documented News INTERNATIONAL: November 2006

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Migration Information Source (MIS)

WORLD MIGRATION MAP: EUROPE -- NOW AVAILABLE [15 November 2006]
http://www.migrationinformation.org/wmm/europe.cfm

Click on your country of interest to access that country's data sheet.

For maps of other parts of the world see--

DATA TOOLS: World Migration Map
http://www.migrationinformation.org/wmm/

The World Migration Map Data Tool leverages the unique Global Migrant Origin Database, developed by the University of Sussex's Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty (< http://www.migrationdrc.org/> Migration DRC), so that you can see the origins and destinations of migrants to and from nearly every country in the world.

______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 12:13 PM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Census

North American Transportation in Figures 
http://www.census.gov/econ/www/natf/natf.html
or
http://www.census.gov/econ/www/natf/english.pdf
[full-text, 416 pages]

A comprehensive overview of transportation statistics in North America. English, French and Spanish editions of the report are available, each containing more than 90 data tables supported by graphs, figures, maps and a number of appendixes

North American Transportation Statistics Project
A tricountry working group was responsible for this project. Agencies represented included Statistics Canada and Transport Canada from Canada; the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes, the Instituto Mexicano del Transporte and the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) from Mexico; and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Census Bureau from the United States. The final product, however, would not have been possible without the many substantial contributions from people in each country who were not members of the working group, and who are represented by the supporting agencies and organizations listed below....

North American Transportation in Figures examines transportation and transportation-related passenger, freight, economic, safety, energy, environmental and demographic statistics relating to Canada, Mexico and the United States. This publication serves to increase awareness of transportation-related statistics currently available in each of the three countries, helps to assess comparability of the data, determines where information gaps exist and reveals which additional data are needed for a more complete picture of transportation in North America.

______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 12:11 PM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

RAND

Benchmarking of the use of personal advisers in Jobcentre Plus [14 November 2006]
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR374/
or
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR374.pdf
[full-text, 84 pages]
and
Summary
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR374.sum.pdf
[full-text, 11 pages]

By: Christian van Stolk, Jennifer Rubin, Jonathan Grant

This report, which was commissioned by the National Audit Office (NAO), presents the results of a
benchmarking study investigating the deployment and management of personal advisers in three employment education
companies in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Tomorrow's People, a non-governmental
organisation in the United Kingdom; WorkDirections, a private sector provider in the
United Kingdom; and the Centrum voor Werk en Inkomen (Centre for Work and Income),
an independent government agency (Zelfstandig Bestuursorgaan) in the Netherlands.

The main purpose of this study is to identify specific, transferable lessons that could lead to
process improvements for Jobcentre Plus and identify the key priorities for enhancing
performance. The structure of the case study reports follows benchmarking criteria agreed
by RAND Europe and the NAO (see Appendix C). The case study reports describe the
different organisational structures, outline the different ways in which advisers function
and give employment advice and assess the varying costs and outcomes of these advice
processes. In addition, an overarching analysis, which is presented in the 'Summary'
section, draws out the principal themes of the comparison between the case studies and
aims to identify transferable lessons for Jobcentre Plus. These main findings are:

Other employment advice providers focus more exclusively on employmentadvice than Jobcentre Plus.
The advice process and the client base served vary among providers.

The autonomy of advisers is central to the advice processes of the benchmarked employment advice providers.

The employment advice providers in this study place an emphasis on
outcome-based performance measures rather than process targets.

The cost per successful outcome (i.e. unemployed clients placed in
employment) of Jobcentre Plus programmes is higher than that of other
employment advice providers.

The initiatives of other providers to improve efficiency in the time use of
advisers could offer valuable lessons for Jobcentre Plus.

This report will be of particular interest to the NAO and its client department, the
Department for Work and Pensions. It is also relevant for policy makers, as well as a wider
audience concerned with the challenge of providing effective and efficient employment
advice.

______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 2:36 PM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

ILR Impact Briefs
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/impactbrief/

The Impact Brief series highlights the research and project based work conducted by ILR faculty that is relevant to workplace issues and public policy.

BRIEF #13 / October 2006 / WWW.ILR.CORNELL.EDU
Diversity at Work: Cross-Racial Bonds on the Job
by SAMUEL B. BACHARACH
McKelvey-Grant Professor (ILR)
PETER A. BAMBERGER
Professor, Technion: Israel Institute of Technology
DANA V ASHDI
Technion: Israel Institute of Technology
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/22/
[full-text, 3 pages]

Research Question:
What factors enable African-American and white coworkers to develop the type of close personal bonds that allow organizations to benefit from having a diverse workforce?

Conclusions:
The ratio of African-Americans to whites in a work group affects the prevalence of supportive personal interactions between members of each group; that said, certain workplace attributes moderate the impact
of this demographic proportionality. Both minority tokenism and minority over-representation in work units may inhibit the formation of trusting relationships; i.e., minorities and majorities tend to turn inward until some
unspecified racial balance is reached. This own-group propensity may be mitigated by the presence of a "support climate" in which workers share a perception that they can count on peers, regardless bf race, for emotional and operational support. Further research is needed to identify other moderating factors.

Workplace impact:
Creating value from diversity requires more than simply increasing the number of minorities in the workplace. More contact between" dissimilar others" does not, on its own, engender the mutually supportive relationships that other research has shown is necessary to generate organizational gains. Diversity management strategies should include interventions that enhance the climate of peer support within work units.

AND MUCH MORE....

Suggested Citation
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A. & Vashdi, D. (2006). Diversity at work: Cross-Racial bonds on the job (ILR Impact Brief #13). Ithaca, NY: School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/22/

[ILR Impact Briefs are written and/or edited by Maralyn Edid]
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 11:16 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

ILR Impact Briefs
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/impactbrief/

The Impact Brief series highlights the research and project based work conducted by ILR faculty that is relevant to workplace issues and public policy.

BRIEF #14 / November 2006 / WWW.ILR.CORNELL.EDU
Diversity and Inclusion: Is There Really a Difference?
by QUINETTA M. ROBERSON
Professor of Human Resource Studies (ILR)
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/23/
[full-text, 3 pages]

Research Question:
Do the terms "diversity" and "inclusion" correspond to distinct sets of policies and practices that reflect organizational strategies for managing diversity?

Conclusions:
Although the two words are conceptually distinct - diversity refers to workforce demographics and observed and unobserved worker characteristics while inclusion refers to human resource initiatives that
increase employee participation and leverage workforce heterogeneity - in practice they seem to overlap. Word usage may express a rhetorical preference within organizations despite some evidence suggesting the two terms describe subtly different approaches to diversity management.

Workplace impact:
Regardless which term organizations adopt, the findings highlight the importance of demographic diversity in combination with policies and practices that promote fair treatment, collaboration, and empowerment. The attributes of diversity and inclusion identified through this study can help managers specify strategies and techniques that could enhance their diversity and inclusion practices. The instrument developed for this research can also be used to assess how employees perceive diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

AND MUCH MORE....

For a related working paper, see--
Roberson, Q. M. (2004). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion (CAHRS Working Paper #04-05). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/12

Suggested Citation
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Diversity and inclusion: Is there really a difference? (ILR Impact Brief #14). Ithaca, NY: School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/23/

[ILR Impact Briefs are written and/or edited by Maralyn Edid]

______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 10:59 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Watson Wyatt

Companies in Singapore forecasting a 4% average salary increase in 2007 [14 November 2006]
http://www.watsonwyatt.com/news/press.asp?ID=16720

SINGAPORE: November 14, 2006 Companies in Singapore are paying an average actual salary increase of 3.9% this year while the average variable bonus is 2.1 months, according to the HR Trends Survey Singapore from Watson Wyatt, a leading global consulting firm.

Salaries are anticipated to increase by 4.0% in 2007. We expect the positive trend for salary increases and bonuses to continue into 2007 in light of the buoyant economy, said Kwan Chee Wei, Regional Director for Human Capital Group, Asia Pacific. The overall average actual salary increase for 2006 is 3.9% which is in line with the projections from the previous year. The financial industry sees an average growth of more than 6 % this year. The telecommunications sector and manufacturing sector have the lowest increment at 3.3%.

The recent survey also reported an average staff turnover in the last 12 months in the range of 5.5 to 15.1%. Kwan said, This increasing turnover rate reinforces the fact that attraction and retention of high performing employees will continue to be even more challenging going forward as companies competes for talent.

Critical positions companies are looking to hire in the next 6 months include manufacturing roles (process engineer, manufacturing specialist) sales positions (sales manager and executive) and in finance (accountant and financial executive).

From the amount saved from the CPF cut of 3 % that came into effect in 1st October 2003, 62 % of all survey participants reported using this amount as cost savings to the company. Of the 16% who reported using other measures in reaction to the CPF cut, they channeled the amount saved into rewarding key performers and talents and enhancing their medical program and improving employee welfare benefits.

The surveys also found that only 2% of companies surveyed reported currently having a supplementary retirement plan or are in the process of establishing one. 10% of the companies surveyed see the need to supplement their employees retirement plan. The main reasons why they would want to implement supplement retirement plans are to communicate the position of a choice employer or as a tool to retain employees.

Watson Wyatts HR Trends Survey Singapore tracks the movement in the market in terms of salary increases, bonuses and staff turnover in Singapore. This survey was conducted between September 18 and 29 this year and more than 100 local and foreign companies representing 23 major industry sectors participated.
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 10:20 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU)
http://kctu.org/

KCTU Launches a General Strike!
http://kctu.org/maybbs/pdsview.php?db=kctuinfo2&code=eng_action&n=36

KCTU Newsletter Special: 2006 General Strike

The KCTU has produced video highlighting trade union repression in South Korea. This can be viewed by logging into the following website: http://www.nodong.org/bbs/view.php?id=nodong_tv&no=127

November 15, 2006: Four-hour �Warning-Strike�---200,000 trade unionists to participate.

November 22, 2006: Full-pledged General Strike

Over 50,000 workers from every industry across South Korea convened in City Hall in downtown Seoul to participate in the annual National Workers Rally sponsored by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) on Sunday November 13, 2006. The National Workers Rally is held every year on the second Sunday of November to commemorate Chun Tae Il, who had self-immolated himself in 1970 in the name of worker rights. His death is considered to be one of the pivotal moments of South Korean modern democratic labor movement. Prior to the main rally, various affiliates of the KCTU such as the Korean Metal Workers Federation (KMWF), Korean Federation of Transportation Public and Social Service Workers Union (KPSU), Korean Federation of Construction Industry Trade Unions (KFCITU), Korean Government Employees Union, and the Korean Cargo Transport Workers Union (KCTWU) conducted separate rallies throughout downtown Seoul highlighting issues particular to each union.

AND MORE....
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 6:08 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Question of the Month [Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, Cornell University]

November 2006

Question:
How many unions are there in the United States? How many of these unions are for relatively small labor organizations of say 200 or less members? Has this changed over time?
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/questionOfTheMonth/nov06.html

Answer:
Provided by the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS),
Electronic Labor Organization Reporting System (eLORS)
http://erds.dol-esa.gov/query/getorgqry.do

An explanation is available at: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/rrlo/lmrda.htm

The following data were extracted on 2 November 2006 by
George Studds, Computer/IT Specialist, DOL/ESA/OLMS/DPMT,
202.693.1245 ph, 202.693.1338 fax,
e-mail: StuddsJr.George@dol.gov

 1999
Reporting unions 1999 = 30,703
Reporting unions 1999 = 20,242 with membership of 200 or less

 2006
Reporting unions 2006 = 25,351
Reporting unions 2006 = 15,269 with membership of 200 or less

Researched by Stuart Basefsky
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 12:24 PM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOUR STUDIES (IILS) at the ILO
Discussion paper
DP/168/2006
Decent Work Research Programme
Policy concertation in Europe: Explaining government choice
Lucio Baccaro, Marco Simoni
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/download/dp16806.pdf
[full-text, 35 pages]

Abstract
This paper focuses on the European governments' decision to involve union and
employment representatives in the design and implementation of public policy. It begins by
elaborating and plotting over time a measure of the phenomenon at hand (1974-2003), based on
coding of textual sources. This reveals no secular growth (or decline) of government willingness
to involve or devolve, and consequently no convergence on a pluralist model of interest
representation. The measure is then used to identify the clearest cases of policy change by
governments. We analyze the contrasting responses of the British and Irish governments as
regards incomes policies, and of the Austrian and Italian governments as to pension reform,
against the backdrop of several plausible hypotheses about government choice. We find that
only two factors account for both increase and increase in government willingness to involve:
the role of government's parliamentary strength (the stronger the government the greater its
ability to withstand social opposition on its own) and the trade unions' organizational and
mobilization capacities: strong unions seem to discourage government's decision to cooperate,
weak(ened) unions to favor it.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1
The trajectory of policy concertation between 1974 and 2003.................................................................2
Preliminary conclusions ...........................................................................................................................7
Understanding government's demand for concertation............................................................................8
Case selection........................................................................................................................................11
Case study analysis................................................................................................................................11
(1) Government weakness ...............................................................................................................11
(2) Problem load ..............................................................................................................................12
(3) Negative policy feedback...........................................................................................................13
(4) Unions' declining organizational strength..................................................................................13
(5) The role of partisanship..............................................................................................................14
(6) Changes in employer preferences ..............................................................................................15
(7) The role of the macroeconomic regime......................................................................................15
Overview of findings.............................................................................................................................16
Concluding remarks ...............................................................................................................................17
Bibliography..........................................................................................................................................19
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 12:49 PM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)
European Working Conditions Observatory (EWCO)

FIFTEEN YEARS OF WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE EU: CHARTING THE TRENDS [7 November 2006]
http://www.eurofound.eu.int//publications/htmlfiles/ef0685.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/pubdocs/2006/85/en/1/ef0685en.pdf
[full-text, 8 pages]

This document provides charts and narratives with respect to --
European Working Conditions Surveys: 1991-2005
The evolution of the EWCS follows the changes in the EU itself over the last 15 years. In 1991, it covered
just 12 countries; 15 in 1995 and 16 in 2000 (including for the first time a non-EU country, Norway). The
2000 survey was extended in 2001 to cover the 10 candidate countries for EU membership. The fourth
survey, carried out in 2005, covered all 25 EU Member States, plus the acceding countries, Bulgaria and
Romania, the candidate countries, Croatia and Turkey, and the EFTA countries, Switzerland and Norway.

In this paper, the analysis is restricted to those countries that were EU members at the time each successive
survey was carried out.

______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 5:09 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions (Dublin Foundation)

Fourth European Working Conditions Surveys (2005)
http://www.eurofound.eu.int//ewco/surveys/EWCS2005/index.htm

includes

Fourth European Working Conditions Survey: Résumé
http://www.eurofound.eu.int//publications/htmlfiles/ef0678.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/pubdocs/2006/78/en/1/ef0678en.pdf
[full-text, 12 pages]

Abstract:
Work plays a significant part in the lives of most Europeans. It is recognised at EU policy level that understanding the conditions under which people work across the different EU countries is central to achieving improved quality of work, greater productivity and increased employment the so called Lisbon objectives. The Foundations European working conditions surveys, conducted every five years, have been providing a valuable insight into quality-of-work issues since 1990. The fourth European Working Conditions Survey presents the views of workers on a wide range of issues including work organisation, working time, equal opportunities, training, health and well-being and job satisfaction.

and

Fourth European Working Conditions survey (infosheet)
http://www.eurofound.eu.int//publications/htmlfiles/ef0652.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/pubdocs/2006/52/en/1/ef0652en.pdf
[full-text 2 pages]

Abstract:
The Foundations European working conditions surveys, conducted every five years, have been providing a unique insight into quality-of-work issues since 1990. In this fourth survey, interviews were conducted in late 2005 with nearly 30,000 workers in 31 countries (the EU25, the two acceding countries of Bulgaria and Romania, as well as Croatia, Turkey, Switzerland and Norway). The survey covers a wide range of topics, including physical risks, working time, work organisation, employability, work satisfaction, health outcomes, absenteeism, work sustainability, worklife balance, violence and harassment and job performance.

______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 4:52 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL31146

Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation
Updated October 11, 2006
Chad Christian Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division
http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL31146_20061011.pdf
[full-text, 18 pages]

Summary
Five years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by foreign nationals
including several terrorists on students visas the security concerns over foreign
student visas are being supplanted by competitiveness concerns. Potential foreign
students, as well as all aliens, must satisfy Department of State (DOS) consular
officers abroad and immigration inspectors upon entry to the United States that they
are not ineligible for visas under the so-called grounds for inadmissibility of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, which include security and terrorist concerns. The
consular officers who process visa applicants are required to check the National
Counterterrorism Centers (NCTC) automated lookout systems before issuing any
visa. In part because of these security measures, student visa debates have shifted
from security to market-based discussions.

Higher education institutions in the United States are concerned over their
ability to attract the numbers and quality of foreign students, and whether the new
post-September 11 security measures impede the entry of potential students into the
U.S. education system. The fields of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) increasingly rely on foreign students, and these fields hold a
top priority with most research institutions. Furthermore, the U.S. economy has
shown a high demand for the skill-sets produced in these fields of study, and the
STEM students provide a crucial link between the academic community and the labor
market. Consequently, with the easing of security concerns, many groups in higher
education and the private sector are seeking to expand pathways for foreign students
to emigrate.

All nonimmigrant students are issued visas from one of three categories, and are
monitored and tracked by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The three
visa categories used by foreign students are F visas for academic study; M visas for
vocational study; and J visas for cultural exchange. The numbers admitted have
more than doubled over the past two decades. In FY1979, the total number of
foreign student and cultural exchange visas issued by DOS consular officers was
224,030 and comprised 4% of all nonimmigrant visas issued. In FY2005, DOS
issued 565,790 visas to F, J, and M nonimmigrants, making up 10.5% of all
nonimmigrant visas issued. The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) aims to manage the tracking and monitoring of foreign students.
Participation in the SEVIS program is now mandatory for all higher education
institutions enrolling foreign students.

Issues and legislation related to foreign students continue to arise. The funding
and English-language competency of foreign students have raised concerns with
some universities, advocacy groups, and other observers. Additionally, recent
legislation has focused on attracting foreign students in STEM fields. Legislation
passed in the Senate (S. 2611) would create pathways to citizenship for foreign
students in the STEM fields of study. Although there are provisions in this legislation
for undergraduate students, the major focus has been on students obtaining advanced
degrees. This report will be updated as warranted.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Foreign Student Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
F Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
J Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
M Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Duration of Status Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Processing, Screening, and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Agency Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Screening Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Security Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Trends and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Foreign Students and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Foreign Students and Language Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
New Pathways to Permanent Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
SKIL Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

List of Figures
Figure 1. F, J, and M Nonimmigrant Visas Issued in FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2. Region of Origin for F, J, and M Nonimmigrants, FY2005 . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 3. Academic Level of Foreign Students, 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 4. Major Fields of Study for Foreign Students, 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . 11

______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 9:01 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers (Vol. 1) - Norway, Poland and Switzerland [7 November 2006]
http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,2340,en_2649_201185_37600345_1_1_1_1,00.html

Too many workers leave the labour market permanently due to health problems, and yet too many people with a disabling condition are denied the opportunity to work. This is a social and economic tragedy common to virtually all OECD countries, and an apparent paradox that needs explaining. Why is it that health is improving, yet more and more people of working age end up out of the workforce relying on long-term sickness and disability benefits?
This first report in a new OECD series on sickness, disability and work explores the possible factors behind this paradox. It looks specifically at the cases of Norway, Poland and Switzerland, and highlights the role of institutions and policies. A range of reform recommendations is put forward.

In all three countries, too little is done to avoid the flow from work to benefits and to move benefit recipients back to employment. At the same time, financial incentives to work and obligations for disabled people on benefits as well as employers are too weak. Many people with health problems can work, and want to work, so having a policy based around an assumption that they cannot work is fundamentally flawed. Helping those people to work is potentially a true �win-win� policy: it helps people avoid exclusion and have higher incomes, at the same time as raising the prospect of higher economic output in the long term.

The full text of this report is available via the SourceOECD database at most universities.

ISBN Number: 9264026312
Publication Date: 7/11/2006
Pages: 172
Number of tables: 36
Number of graphs: 32
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 6:27 AM

IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

European Commission (EC)

Employment in Europe 2006 [6 November 2006]
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2006/nov/employment_europe_en.pdf
[full-text, 292 pages]

[excerpt]
The eighteenth edition of the Employment in Europe report is published at a moment when employment performance in the
EU appears to be picking up. Nevertheless, progress over recent years towards the Lisbon and Stockholm employment rate
targets for 2010, although encouraging with respect to women and older workers, remains insufficient overall and greater
efforts are needed to provide the right impetus for further improvement. This is why, at the Spring 2006 European Council,
Heads of State and Government reiterated the need for more effective and comprehensive implementation of the European
Employment Strategy, particularly by emphasising a number of aspects, such as an adequate balance between security and
flexibility in the labour market (i.e. flexicurity), mobility, education and skills, and a life-cycle approach to labour force
participation.

The need for increasingly adaptable European labour markets reflects a rapidly changing economic environment characterised
by phenomena such as globalisation; the ageing of European societies; and the development of segmented labour markets.
These key challenges require that Member States identify and carry through comprehensive reforms aimed at improving
the balance between flexibility and security in their labour markets. In order to improve employment outcomes and facilitate
broader social acceptance, the pathways to higher flexicurity must be comprehensive and include four key elements
flexible contractual arrangements; effective active labour market policies; credible lifelong learning systems; and modern
social security systems combining the provision of adequate income support with the need to facilitate labour market mobility
and transition.

Against this background, the current edition of Employment in Europe addresses a number of politically prominent issues.
The main conclusions are:

Significant synergies/complementarities exist between flexibility and security outcomes in the labour market, for instance
between employment rates and income equality.

There is a need for furthering the culture of active labour market policy evaluation, using both the micro- and macro-economic
approaches.

Economies close to the technology frontier need to focus more on creating new technologies by allocating a higher share
of resources to tertiary education and fostering a highly adaptable work force.

Geographic mobility is a crucial element in the strategy to cope with the current labour market challenges, but it has to
be combined with other relevant policies, such as education and immigration policies, in order to provide an efficient and
consistent policy response.

CONTENTS
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 1: Panorama of the European labour markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Recent labour market performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1. EU labour market performance in 2005 in a global perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2. Recent general labour market developments in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.1. Employment growth across Member States in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.2. Overall trends in unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.3. Developments in productivity growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3. Short-term prospects for the EU labour market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. Labour market situation in 2005 in the enlarged EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1. Employment rates and the Lisbon and Stockholm targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1.1. Overall progress in relation to the Lisbon and Stockholm targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1.2. Employment rate developments at Member State level in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.1.3. Situation of individual Member States in relation to the Lisbon and Stockholm targets . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2. Activity rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3. Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4. Features of EU employment expansion between 2000 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4. Recent employment trends according to type of contractual arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.1. Part-time employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2. Fixed-term employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5. Working hours and atypical working time arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.1. Working hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1.1. Long term trends in working hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1.2. Working hours across EU Member States in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.1.3. Working hours across sectors of economic activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2. Atypical working arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6. Skills and employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.1. Skill structure of the working age population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.2. Skills and employment performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7. Sectoral employment structure and trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.1. Sectoral employment structure in the EU in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.2. Sectoral employment trends in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.3. Sectoral employment trends in the EU since 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.3.1. Sectoral developments by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.3.2. Sectoral developments by age group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8. Occupational employment structure and trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.1. Occupational employment structure in the EU in 2005 and overall trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.2. Recent developments in occupational structure by gender and age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9. Regional labour market disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10. Demographic trends and migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.1. Demographic trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.2. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.3. Labour market situation of non-EU nationals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Chapter 2: Flexibility and security in the EU labour markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2. Definitions of flexicurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.1. Wilthagen's definition: the flexibility-security nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.2. The Danish Golden Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.3. Beyond the Danish system: other proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.3.1. Layoff taxes to internalise the social costs of dismissals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.3.2. Individual unemployment accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.3.3. A single type of employment contract to counter labour market segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3. Flexibility: Employment Protection Legislation and segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.1. Employment Protection Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.1.1. Strictness of EPL differs widely across the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.1.2. EPL does not seem to significantly affect total unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.1.3. and its impact on total employment is modest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.1.4. but it may harm employment prospects of weak groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1.5. tends to increase unemployment duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1.6. and to slow down labour re-allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1.7. although this has mixed effects on productivity and growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.1.8. The perceived insecurity paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.2. Flexibility at the margin: labour market segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.2.1. EPL loosening has mainly affected temporary work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.2.2. leading to labour market segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.2.3. This has perverse macro-economic effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.2.4. but may trigger easing of rules for regular work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4. Security: Unemployment benefits (UBs) and activation strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.1. The effects of UBs and ALMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.1.1. High and long-lasting benefits increase unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.1.2. but are not necessarily harmful for productivity and welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.1.3. Monitoring and sanctions can offset adverse incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.1.4. and so can effective Active Labour Market Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2. The trade-off between UB and EPL in providing insurance against the risk of unemployment . . . 94
4.2.1. Flexicurity calls for loosening EPL and more ALMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.2.2. but UB-ALMPs may imply high fiscal costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.2.3. rendering adoption in many Member States problematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3. Higher unemployment benefits enhance workers' feeling of security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.3.1. but they may lead to excessive layoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.3.2. leading to proposals for setting layoff taxes in exchange for loosening EPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5. Mapping different flexicurity systems/models in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.1. Interactions between institutions play an important role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2. which triggered the analysis of economic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.3. The Principal Components Analysis (PCA) followed by the Clustering Analysis (CLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.3.1. Labour market outcomes in different flexicurity systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6. Building consensus for reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.1. Social Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.2. Sources of political resistance to reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Chapter 3: Effective European Active Labour Market Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2. What are labour market policies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
2.1. The "old" OECD LMP database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
2.2. The "new" Eurostat/OECD Labour Market Policy (LMP) database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
2.3. Main differences between the two LMP classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
2.4. Analysis of selected active labour market policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
2.4.1. Job-search assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
2.4.2. Labour market (re)training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
2.4.3. Employment subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
2.4.4. Direct job creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3. Expenditure on ALMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.1. Has the balance between active and passive measures shifted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.2. Indicators of spending effort on LMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.2.1. Spending per unemployed person expressed as a percentage of GDP per capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.2.2. Spending on LMPs divided by the number of persons wanting to work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4. Evaluation of ALMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.1. Comments on the programme evaluation literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.1.1. Micro-econometric programme evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.1.2. Job-search assistance and activation programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.1.3. Labour market (re)training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.1.4. Youth measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.1.5. Employment subsides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.1.6. Direct job creation (in the public sector) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.1.7. Lessons from a meta-analysis of programme evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.2. Macro-economic evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.3. Reconciling the results from macro and micro analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5. Interactions between active and passive policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.1. The replacement ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.2. The coverage rate of unemployment benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.3. Unemployment benefits, productivity and job quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.4. A review of empirical studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.4.1. Micro-econometric evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.4.2. Policy interactions and the political economy of reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.5. The trade-off between EPL and UB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
5.6. The importance of an integrated management of benefit systems
and active policies activation strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6. Conclusions the need for an evaluation culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Annex 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Annex 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Chapter 4 - Human capital, technology and growth in the EU Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
2. Measuring the returns to education: from micro-economics to macro-economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
2.1. The micro-economic returns to education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
2.1.1. The Mincerian wage equation and returns to schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
2.1.2. Social v. private returns to education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
2.2. The standard assumption: human capital as an ordinary input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
2.2.1. From the standard to the augmented Solow model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
2.2.2. Estimating the augmented Solow model: mixed results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
2.2.3. Measurement error in human capital: another perspective on the augmented Solow model . . . 180
2.3. An alternative assumption: technological progress as a function of human capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.3.1. Human capital, technology creation and endogenous growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.3.2. Human capital, technology diffusion and growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
2.3.3. Distance to frontier, technological progress and human capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
3. Econometric evidence of the growth-effects of human capital through technological
progress in the EU Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3.1. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3.1.1. Measurement of total factor productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3.1.2. Measurement of educational attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3.1.3. Measurement of adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
3.2. Model specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
3.2.1. First empirical specification: fraction of high-skilled human capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
3.2.2. Second empirical specification: fraction of high-skilled and adaptable human capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.3. Results and interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.3.1. Fraction of high-skilled human capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.3.2. Fraction of high-skilled and adaptable human capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4. Conclusions and policy implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Annex 1: A more formal description of the augmented Solow model and
its related empirical specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Annex 2: The Benhabib-Spiegels variations on the Nelson-Phelps framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Special Focus: Human Capital and Innovation; Challenges and Issues for SMEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Chapter 5 - Geographic mobility within the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
1.1. The background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
1.2. Coverage of the chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
2. The recent policy context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.1. Action Plan on Skills and Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.2. Integrated Guidelines for growth and jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
2.3. Mobility for education and training purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
2.4. European Year of Workers Mobility 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
3. Trends in geographic mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
3.1. A historical overview of intra-European migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
3.2. Current trends in European cross-border mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
3.2.1. Non-nationals in the EU population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
3.2.2. Non-national working age population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
3.2.3. Recent cross-border mobility of EU-15 citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
3.2.4. Mobility flows from the new Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
3.3. Regional mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
4. Who are the movers and what drives them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
4.1. The characteristics of EU movers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
4.2. Mobility motives and experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
4.3. Prospects for future cross-border mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
4.4. Drivers and barriers of mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
5. Commuting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
5.1. Commuting between regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
5.2. Commuting between countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
6. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Statistical annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Macro-economic indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Key employment indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Data sources and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************

# posted by SBasefsky : 6:52 AM

IWS Documented News INTERNATIONAL

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

[IWS] MIS: WORLD MIGRATION MAP: EUROPE -- NOW AVAILABLE [15 November 2006]

[IWS] Census: New! NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION in FIGURES [15 November 2006]

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

[IWS] RAND: BENCHMARKING PERSONAL ADVISORS in JOBCENTRE PLUS [14 November 2006]

[IWS] ILR IMPACT BRIEFS: DIVERSITY AT WORK: CROSS-RACIAL BONDS ON THE JOB [October 2006]

[IWS] ILR IMPACT BRIEFS: DIVERSITY & INCLUSION: IS THERE REALLY A DIFFERENCE? [November 2006]

[IWS] Watson Wyatt: SINGAPORE 4% Salary Increase 2007 Forecast [14 November 2006]

[IWS] KOREA: KCTU Launches a General Strike! [14 November 2006]

Monday, November 13, 2006

[IWS] TOTAL NUMBER of UNIONS in U.S. [2006 & 1999] and more.....

Friday, November 10, 2006

[IWS] IILS: Policy Concertation in Europe: Explaining Government Choice

[IWS] Dublin Foundation: 15 Years of EU Working Conditions CHARTED [7 November 2006]

[IWS] Dublin Foundation: 4th European Working Conditions Survey 2005 [7 November 2006]

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

[IWS] CRS: Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation [updated 11 October 2006]

[IWS] OECD: Sickness, Disability & Work: Breaking the Barriers (Vol. 1) - Norway, Poland and Switzerland [7 November 2006]

Monday, November 06, 2006

[IWS] EC: EMPLOYMENT in EUROPE 2006 [6 November 2006]

About Me

Links

Archives