IWS Documented News INTERNATIONAL

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
________________________________________________________________________

CBO Testimony

Statement of Robert A. Sunshine
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and of Other Activities Related to the War on Terrorism

before the Committee on Budget
U.S. House of Representatives
July 31, 2007
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8497&type=0
or
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8497/07-30-WarCosts_Testimony.pdf
[full-text, 18 pages]

[excerpt]
Funding to Date

Since September 2001, the Congress has appropriated $602 billion for military operations and other activities related to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. In addition, although not explicitly appropriated for that purpose, an estimated $2 billion has been spent by the VA for war-related benefits. Specific appropriations, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, have risen to $120 billion in 2006 and $170 billion in 2007.

According to CBO's estimates, about $533 billion of the appropriated sums has been allocated for U.S. military operations and other activities carried out by the Department of Defense (DoD). The department's 2007 appropriation for those purposes­$165 billion­accounts for more than a quarter of its budget for the year. The Defense Department is currently obligating an average of almost $11 billion a month for expenses related to its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other activities related to the war on terrorism. Most of that sum (more than $9 billion per month) is related to operations in Iraq.

Of the $602 billion in total appropriations, approximately $30 billion has been provided to establish, train, and equip indigenous security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about $39 billion has been appropriated for reconstruction and relief efforts, diplomatic and consular operations, embassy construction, economic support, and foreign aid. Including both specific appropriations and other costs incurred by the VA, a total of almost $3 billion has been provided for medical care and other VA programs to assist former service members affected by their participation in operations related to the war on terrorism.
Cost of the Increase in Force Levels

CBO projected the cost of the recent increase in the number of troops deployed to Iraq and also estimated the total amount of funding that would be required through 2017 to sustain U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations involved in the war on terrorism. Compared with DoD's previously announced plans for 2007, CBO estimates that an additional 30,000 to 40,000 personnel from the four military services have been deployed on the ground in the Iraq theater. Those additional troops will cost about $10 billion, $22 billion, or $40 billion, respectively, depending on whether that increase is sustained for four months, 12 months, or 24 months.

Projected Costs over 10 Years

In addition, CBO projected the costs through 2017 of all activities associated with operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism on the basis of two scenarios provided by Chairman Spratt. Because the Defense Department does not report detailed operational statistics, these estimates are rough approximations based on current funding and force levels.

In the first scenario, the number of personnel deployed on the ground for the war on terrorism would be reduced from the 2007 average of about 210,000 to 30,000 by the beginning of 2010 and then remain at that level through 2017.(1) CBO estimates that the cost to the U.S. government under this scenario would range from $481 billion to $603 billion over the 2008­2017 period, depending on how long the current personnel level in Iraq is sustained (see  Table 1).

In the second scenario, the number of personnel deployed to Iraq and other locations associated with the war on terrorism would decline more gradually, from an average of 210,000 in 2007 to 75,000 by the start of 2013 and then remain at that level through 2017. CBO estimates that total costs to the government under this scenario would range from $924 billion to $1,010 billion over the 2008­2017 period, again depending on how long the current personnel level in Iraq is sustained.

AND MUCH 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 : 11:49 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
________________________________________________________________________

ETUI-REHS

European Economic and  Employment Policy Brief:
No. 3 ­ 2007
ISSN 1782]2165

No vacation nation USA ­ a comparison of leave and holiday in OECD countries [4 July 2007]
http://www.etui-rehs.org/research/media/files/eeepb/2007/3_2007
[full-text, 18 pages]

[excerpt]
Introduction
Average annual working hours are substantially shorter in European countries and elsewhere in the world's advanced economies than they are in the United States. One important reason for the difference is that
workers in the United States are less likely to receive paid annual leave and paid public holidays, and those U.S. workers that do receive paid time off generally receive far less than their counterparts in comparable
economies.

This report reviews the most recently available data from a range of national and international sources on statutory requirements for paid leave and paid public holidays in 21 rich countries (16 European countries,
Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States). In addition to our finding that the United States is the only country in the group that does not require employers to provide paid leave, we note that almost every other rich country has also established legal rights to paid public holidays over and above paid leave.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES & CHARTS....

See Press Release (4 July 2007)
ENJOY YOUR SUMMER HOLIDAYS: YOU ARE EUROPEAN
http://www.etui-rehs.org/en/about_etui_rehs/press/press_releases

The USA is the only OECD country that does not guarantee its workers paid annual leave. As a result, US workers are less likely to receive paid annual leave or paid public holidays, and those that do generally receive far less than their counterparts in comparable world economies. European Union member states and other European countries have all established a legal right to at least 20 days of paid leave per year. Some states offer as many as 30 days. On top of this most European states offer paid public holidays. The USA has no statutory provision for paid public holidays. These are some of the findings to come from a report entitled "No-vacation nation USA - a comparison of leave and holiday in OECD countries", written by Rebecca Ray and John Schmitt from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington D.C. The findings are today published in the ETUI-REHS's European Economic and Employment Policy Brief 03/2007.

The authors describe the substantial differences in workers' entitlements to paid leave and public holidays across the OECD. They estimate that as many as one in four US private sector workers lack any form of paid leave. Even when entitlements provided 'voluntarily' by employers are taken into account, entitlements are much lower than in European countries and they are much more unequally distributed across different categories of workers.

Notes to editors: European Economic and Employment Policy Briefs (EEEPBs) are published six to eight times a year by the ETUI-REHS. The aim of EEEPBs is to provide readers with short, critical, policy-oriented analyses of topical issues relating to European employment and the economy. Policy briefs cover research that is conducted by the both ETUI-REHS and by its cooperation partners.

______________________________
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 : 11:15 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
________________________________________________________________________

World Bank &
Center for Global Development

Inexcusable Absence: Why 60 Million Girls Still Aren't In School and What to do About It
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/11898/
(Scroll down to bottom for full-text access by Chapter)



Press Release
Most Out-of-School Girls from Excluded Minority Groups, Says Book
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21423991~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html

July 27, 2007­Three quarters of the millions of girls worldwide who don't go to school belong to ethnic, religious, linguistic, racial or other minority groups excluded from mainstream society.

That's the key finding of a new book, Inexcusable Absence: Why 60 million girls still aren't in school and what to do about it, published by the Center for Global Development and launched June 21 in Washington, DC.

The book highlights the often vast differences between girls from minority and majority groups in enrolling in and completing school­a previously neglected phenomenon, says Maureen A. Lewis, acting chief economist for the Bank's human development network.
.
"Everyone we've talked to has been quite amazed by it, because it's not on the radar screen," says Lewis, who co-authored the book with former Bank Education Sector Manager Marlaine E. Lockheed.

While girls are catching up to and even surpassing boys in school in many countries, girls from excluded minority groups remain at the bottom in terms of education.

The number of out-of-school girls worldwide has fallen from 60 million to an estimated 43 million in 2006, but the problem persists in countries where minorities are economically and socially disadvantaged, and women are secluded.

Most out-of-school girls live in Africa (47 percent) and South Asia (25 percent), but in Latin America girls from minority groups represent  the highest proportion of out-of-school girls..

• In Guatemala, a lower-middle-income country, 62 percent of Spanish-speaking girls but only 26 percent of indigenous, non-Spanish-speaking girls complete primary school.

• Girls from the Hill Tribes of Lao PDR, a low income country, complete fewer than two years of schooling, while girls from the dominant ethnic group living in urban communities go to school an average of eight years, the same number as their brothers.

• Only 9 percent of Roma girls in the Slovak Republic, an upper-middle-income country, go to secondary school, compared with 54 percent of Slovak girls.

Benefits of Closing the Education Gender Gap

Studies have shown that closing the education gender gap has a positive impact on economic growth. Educated girls are more likely to enter the work force, earn higher incomes, delay marriage, plan their families, and seek an education for their own children.


In contrast, lack of education and skills makes it much harder for girls and their families to rise out of deep poverty and to protect themselves from domestic violence and HIV/AIDS.

"With its positive impacts on economic and social development, countries cannot afford to neglect girls' education," say Lewis and Lockheed.

But minority parents often have not gone to school themselves and are less likely to see school as important, especially in places where the quality of education is poor, the school itself is in bad condition, or teachers are frequently absent, notes Lewis.
.
Parents also fear their daughters won't be safe or will be mistreated at school. They may want them to help out at home, or not "see any reason why a girl would need to leave," Lewis says.

"It's a combination of them not wanting to be part of the larger society in some cases, and in other cases, they're discriminated against," she says.

Tailored Solutions

"If you want to reach this group, you can't do more of the same," she adds. "You've got to tailor things better, and that makes it more expensive and more difficult," says Lewis.,

One solution eases fears among the Roma of Eastern Europe by allowing mothers to attend school with small children.

Schools in Rajasthan, India, have hired part-time workers to escort girls from excluded groups to and from school.

Conditional cash transfers assist families that send children to school in Bangladesh, Ecuador, and Mexico, and other countries.

And in Chile, targeting resources to low-performing schools significantly reduced the achievement gap between indigenous and non-indigenous children.

Other interventions could include:
   * Altering education policies and addressing discrimination
   * Expanding options for schooling, such as nonformal schools and distance learning
   * Improving the quality and relevance of schools and classrooms
   * Supporting compensatory preschool and in-school programs
   * Creating incentives for households to send girls to school

But getting to school is in itself not enough, Lewis points out.

"Are they actually learning anything? Is the teacher there? Those kinds of things are as important as whether they actually go to school." The book observes that once in school, excluded girls tend to perform as well as excluded boys, and often surpass them on test of learning.

______________________________
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 : 10:43 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 Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)


Job satisfaction and labour market mobility [10 July 2007]
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0710.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2007/10/en/1/ef0710en.pdf
[full-text, 53 pages]

Author:
Fasang, Anette; Geerdes, Sara; Schömann, Klaus; Siarov, Liuben

Summary:
The European Year of Mobility 2006 recognises that geographic and job mobility raises flexibility in the labour market and may contribute to job growth in the European Union. It is frequently claimed that the European Employment Strategy focuses mainly on creating more jobs and less effort is devoted to creating better jobs. A useful measure for the quality of jobs is job satisfaction ­ one of the major focuses of this research report. In particular, the relationship between job satisfaction and different indicators of labour market mobility are analysed, as both constitute important elements of the European employment strategy.

CONTENTS
Introduction
1. Labour market mobility as a factor in job satisfaction
2. Extent of job satisfaction in the EU
3. Drivers of job satisfaction
4. Conclusions
Bibliography
Annexes
______________________________
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 : 11:41 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
________________________________________________________________________

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)
Staff Research Study


Competitive Conditions for Foreign Direct Investment in India [July 2007]
(Publication 3931)
Laura Bloodgood, Office of Industries
http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/332/pub3931.pdf
[full-text, 153 pages]

Abstract
Net foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into India reached $15.7 billion in India's
2006­07 fiscal year, more than triple the $4.7 billion recorded during 2005­06, with the
largest share of FDI flows from Mauritius, followed by the United States and the United
Kingdom. This study examines FDI in India, in the context of the Indian economic and
regulatory environment. We present FDI trends in India, by country and by industry, using
official government data from India, the United States, and international organizations. To
supplement the official data, the study also discusses specific investment activities of
multinational companies in India, representing a wide range of countries and industries. To
illustrate the driving forces behind these trends, the study also discusses the investment
climate in India, Indian government incentives to foreign investors, particularly Special
Economic Zones, the Indian regulatory environment as it affects investment, and the effect
of India's global, regional, and bilateral trade agreements on investment from the United
States and other countries. Finally, the study presents two case studies. The first examines
global FDI in India's automobile industry. The second analyzes the effects of India's 2005
Patent Law on FDI in the pharmaceutical industry.


CONTENTS
Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
Chapter 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-1
Purpose and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Overview of FDI in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Chapter 2. FDI in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1
Overview of FDI flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Mergers and acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Greenfield FDI in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Distribution of FDI within India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
FDI flows to India by source country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Mauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
FDI flows to India by industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
Chapter 3. India's FDI Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Strong economic growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Labor issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Low wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Rigidity in the labor market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Rising salaries and high turnover in some industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Antiquated infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Increased opportunities for private sector participation in infrastructure projects . . . 3-7
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Educated work force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Weaknesses in the educational system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Access to capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Bureaucracy and corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Chapter 4. Special Economic Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Incentives to invest in SEZs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Establishment and licensing of SEZs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Other FDI incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Chapter 5. FDI Regulation and Dispute Settlement . . . . 5-1
FDI procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
FDI regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Labor regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Intellectual property rights regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Trademark protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Copyright protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Patent protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Other regulatory issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Implications of recent FDI policy changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Semiconductors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Retailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
Litigation and alternative dispute resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
Litigation in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
Alternative dispute resolution in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
ADR in action: The Enron dispute and the Dubhol power plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
Chapter 6. India's Investment-Related International
Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
World Trade Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Agreement on trade related investment measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
General agreement on trade in services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
South Asia Free Trade Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Bilateral investment treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
Double tax avoidance agreements and CECA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
Other agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Chapter 7. Automotive Investment in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Background on the domestic Indian automotive industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
India as an automotive FDI destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
The Indian domestic market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
Indian government policies affecting automotive FDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
Auto policy of 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
Automotive mission plan 2006­2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
Foreign investment in the Indian auto industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
U.S.-based passenger vehicle investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
European-based passenger vehicle investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11
Asia-Pacific-based passenger vehicle investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12
Component industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16
Chapter 8. Case Study 2: Pharmaceutical FDIin India . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
The evolution of India's patent laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
The Patent laws under British rule (1856­1947) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
The Post-Independence patent laws (1947­1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
The post-TRIPS patent laws (1995­present) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
Ongoing patent law controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
The evolution of the pharmaceutical industry in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
The domestic pharmaceutical industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
Foreign direct investment in the drug and pharmaceutical sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
Greenfield projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10
Strategic alliances in R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
Strategic alliances in manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13
Pharmaceutical M&A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biblio-1
Appendices
A. Sector-specific guidelines for FDI in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
B. Web site addresses of State and Unin Territory (UT) Governments and their
investment promotion agencies in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
C. Bilateral international agreements that affect investment in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Boxes
3-1. Foreign investors attracted by strong Indian economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3-2. Hindustan Lever Ltd. succeeds in the Indian market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3-3. Large U.S. firms tap educated Indian work force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
5-1. Forms of ADR: Mediation, Arbitration, and Concilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
7-1. Key recommended interventions in the AMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
8-1. The Novartis challenge to India's patent law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

Tables
2-1. Top 10 acquisitions in India, by value, 2002­06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2-2. Largest 15 greenfield FDI projects in India in 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2-3. FDI equity inflows, January 2000­December 2006, by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2-4. Top country investors in India, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2-5. India, M&A deals by acquiror country and industry of the target company, 2000­06 . . .. . . . . . . 2-12
2-6. Selected data for U.S. majority-owned affiliates in India, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
2-7. India, FDI by sector, selected years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
3-1. Inward FDI flows for selected countries, 2002­05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
4-1. India: Types of special economic zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
5-1. Selected Indian labor laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
6-1. India, GATS schedule of commitments: covered investment service sectors . . . . . . . 6-3
7-1. Indian passenger vehicle production, in units, FY 2001­02 through FY2005­06 . . . 7-2
7-2. Indian automotive parts production: FY2001­02 through FY2005­06 . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7-3. Indian passenger vehicle exports, in units, FY2001­02 through FY2005­06 . . . . . . 7-3
7-4. Indian exports of automotive parts: FY2001­02 through FY2005­06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7-5. Indian passenger vehicle sales, in units, FY2001­02 through FY2005­06 . . . . . . . . 7-4
7-6. U.S. automakers with assembly operations in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11
7-7. EU automakers with assembly operations in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12
7-8. Asia-Pacific automakers with assembly operations in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14
7-9. Examples of global automotive parts suppliers manufacturing in India . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15
8-1. Greenfield FDI in the pharmaceutical and health biotechnology sectors by source
region and activity, 2002­06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
8-2. Select contract manufacturing deals in pharmaceuticals in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

Figures
2-1. FDI inflows to India, 1990­2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2-2. FDI inflows to developing countries, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2-3. M&A in India, by number of projects and value, 2000­06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2-4. Map of India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8


______________________________
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 : 8:27 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
________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

China's Currency: A Summary of the Economic Issues [11 July 2007]
Wayne M. Morrison, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Marc Labonte, Government and Finance Division
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21625.pdf
[full-text, 6 pages]

Summary
Many Members of Congress charge that China's policy of accumulating foreign
reserves (especially U.S. dollars) to influence the value of its currency constitutes a form
of currency manipulation intended to make its exports cheaper and imports into China
more expensive than they would be under free market conditions. They further contend
that this policy has caused a surge in the U.S. trade deficit with China and has been a
major factor in the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Threats of possible congressional
action led China to make changes to its currency policy in 2005, which has since
resulted in a modest appreciation of the yuan. However, many Members have expressed
dissatisfaction with the pace of China's currency reforms and have warned of potential
legislative action. This report summarizes the main findings CRS Report RL32165,
China's Currency: Economic Issues and Options for U.S. Trade Policy, by Wayne M.
Morrison and Marc Labonte and will be updated as events warrant.

______________________________
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 : 6:19 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)

China's Economic Conditions
Updated July 13, 2007
Wayne M. Morrison, Specialist in International Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33534.pdf
[full-text, 29 pages]


Summary
Since the initiation of economic reforms in 1979, China has become one of the
world's fastest-growing economies. From 1979 to 2005 China's real gross domestic
product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 9.7%. Real GDP grew by 11.1%
in 2006, and during the first quarter of 2007, it rose by 11.1% over the same period
in 2006. China is expected to continue to enjoy rapid economic growth over the next
several years, provided that it continues to implement needed reforms, particularly
in regard to its inefficient state-owned enterprises and the state banking system. If
projected growth levels continue, China could become the world's largest economy
within a decade or so.

Trade and foreign investment continues to play a major role in China's booming
economy. In 2006, exports rose by 27% to $969 billion, while imports were up by
20% to $792 billion. This produced an trade surplus of about $177 billion. From
2003 to 2006, the value of total Chinese trade doubled. On the basis of current
trends, China could surpass the United States in 2007 to become the second largest
merchandise exporter (after the European Union). Well over half of China's trade
is conducted by foreign firms operating in China. The combination of trade
surpluses, foreign direct investment flows, and large-scale purchases of foreign
currency have helped make China the world's largest holder of foreign exchange
reserves at $1.3 trillion as of June 2007.

Although the economy has shown remarkable growth in recent years, Chinese
officials have expressed concern over a number of areas that they perceive as
threatening future growth, including rising inflation, over-dependence on exports and
fixed investment for growth, widening income gaps, and growing pollution. The
government has indicated its goal over the coming years to create a "harmonious
society" that would promote more economic balanced growth and address a number
of economic and social issues.

China's economy continues to be a concern to many U.S. policymakers. On the
one hand, U.S. consumers, exporters, and investors have greatly benefitted from
China's rapid economic and trade growth. On the other hand, the surge in Chinese
exports to the United States has put competitive pressures on various U.S. industries.
Many U.S. policymakers have argued that China often does not play by the rules
when it comes to trade and they have called for greater efforts to pressure China to
fully implement its World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and to change
various economic policies deemed harmful to U.S. economic interests, such as its
currency policy, its use of subsidies to support state-owned firms, and trade and
investment barriers to U.S. goods and services. In addition, China's rising demand
for energy and raw materials has raised prices for such commodities and has sharply
increased pollution levels, which may have important global implications.
This report provides an overview of China's economic development, challenges
China faces to maintain growth, and the implications of China's rise as a major
economic power for the United States. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
An Overview of China's Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
China's Economy Prior to Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Introduction of Economic Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
China's Economic Growth Since Reforms: 1979-Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Causes of China's Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
China's Industrial Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Measuring the Size of China's Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreign Direct Investment in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
China's Trade Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
China's Major Trading Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Major Chinese Trade Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
China's Growing Trade with Africa and Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
China's Trade with North Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Major Long-Term Challenges Facing the Chinese Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Outlook for China's Economy and Implications for the United States . . . . . . . . 23

List of Figures
Figure 1. China's Foreign Exchange Reserves: 1996-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

List of Tables
Table 1. China's Average Annual Real GDP Growth: 1960-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Major Chinese Industries Based on Value-Added Output:
1995 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Comparisons of U.S., Japanese, and Chinese GDP and Per Capita
GDP in Nominal U.S. Dollars and PPP, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 4. Major Foreign Investors in China: 1979-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 5. Foreign Direct Investment by Sectors in 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 6. China's Merchandise World Trade, 1979-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 7. Monthly U.S. and Chinese Total Merchandise Exports:
August 2006-May 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 8. China's Major Trading Partners: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 9. Top 10 Chinese Exports: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 10. Top 10 Chinese Imports: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 11. Top 5 African Sources of Chinese Imports: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 12. Top Five Chinese Imports from Africa: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 13. China's Top 5 Export Markets: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 14. Top 5 Chinese Exports to Africa: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 15. China's Top 5 Latin American Import Partners: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . 18
Table 16. China's Top Five Imports From Latin America: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . 18
Table 17. China's Top 5 Latin American Export Markets: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . 18
Table 18. China's Top 5 Imports From Latin America: 2004-2006 . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 19. Major Chinese Exports to North Korea: 2003-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 20. Major Chinese Imports From North Korea: 2003-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . 20

______________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________

OECD EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK [June 2007]
http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,3343,en_2649_34731_36936230_1_1_1_1,00.html

Summary
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/32/38798341.pdf
[full-text, 6 pages]


See also
OECD POLICY BRIEF:
Globalisation, Jobs and Wages
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/1/38796126.pdf
[full-text, 8 pages]

[excerpt from Employment Outlook]

Labour markets in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs)
To what extent is rapid economic growth in the BRICs improving job prospects and wages in these countries? How are wage inequalities and poverty evolving? How quickly is the human capital available in the BRICs catching up with the OECD?

More jobs but less productive? The impact of labour market policies on productivity
What is the impact of employment-friendly labour market reforms on productivity and economic growth? Is social protection harmful to productivity? Is a market-reliant labour market the only way to achieve high employment and strong productivity growth simultaneously?

OECD workers in the global economy: increasingly vulnerable?
Does globalisation, notably the integration of China and India in the world economy, render workers less secure or reduce their bargaining power? What are the implications of offshoring for employment and earnings? What can policy-makers do to ensure that workers receive their fair share of the gains from globalisation?

Financing social protection: the employment effects
Should the financing of social protection primarily rely on social security contributions? Would a broader tax base help create new job opportunities? What are the pros and cons of reducing taxes and contributions on low-wage jobs and raising them on high-wage jobs?

Activating the unemployed: what countries do
What are the main instruments used by employment services to "activate" jobseekers? How do they ensure that the jobseeker looks actively for employment? Which countries make participation in programmes like training or subsidised jobs compulsory after a period of unsuccessful job searching?


______________________________
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 : 12:36 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
________________________________________________________________________

OECD Communications Outlook 2007 [July 2007]
http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_201185_38876369_1_1_1_1,00.html

Summary
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/50/38988835.pdf


Table of contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Policy Issues and Market Structure
Broadband on its way to becoming the dominant telecommunication medium |
Market structure | Emerging policy issues | Sustained growth through transformation

Chapter 2. Recent Communication Policy Developments
Trends in competition | Regulatory issues | Household expenditures on communications

Chapter 3. Telecommunication Market Size
Mobile communications | Broadband | Voice traffic | Research and development

Chapter 4. Network Dimensions and Development
Fixed lines | Blurring of lines between mobile and fixed | Mobile network growth | Wi-Fi | Payphones | Broadband network growth | Investment

Chapter 5. Broadband and Internet Infrastructure
Internet subscribers | Internet hosts | Domain names | Web servers | Secure servers | National and regional Internet development | Peering

Chapter 6. Broadcasting
Market penetration of distribution platforms and digitalisation | Channel and content availability | Changes in market structure | Regulation | Challenges

Chapter 7. Main Trends in Pricing
Residential and business telecommunication baskets | International pricing trends | Mobile pricing trends | Broadband pricing trends | Leased lines

Chapter 8. Trade in Telecommunication Equipment
Worldwide trends in telecommunication equipment trade | Trade among OECD member countries | Comparative advantages | Breakdown of intra-industry trade

Chapter 9. Communications in the Emerging BRICS Economies
Emerging economies | Network dimensions | Comparative position | Policy contexts, structures and developments

Glossary

Annex Tables

The full volume can be browsed for free at the < http://www.oecd.org/bookshop?pub=932007021E1> OECD Online Bookshop.
______________________________
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 : 12:22 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
________________________________________________________________________

Reason Foundation

ANNUAL PRIVATIZATION REPORT 2007 [26 July 2007]
http://reason.org/apr2007/
or
http://reason.org/apr2007/apr2007.pdf
[full-text, 122 pages]

Press Release [26 July 2007]
Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report
Long-term toll road leases and global airport privatization among the top trends
http://www.reason.org/news/annual_privatization_report_072607.shtml


Los Angeles (July 26, 2007) ­ Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report finds states are increasingly partnering with the private sector to build roads and reduce traffic jams that have become one of the biggest complaints among taxpayers living in nearly every mid- to large-sized city in the country. The report analyzes the latest developments in privatization and government reform in the areas of transportation, aviation, education, local government services, telecommunications, and eminent domain.

The Annual Privatization Report finds the most important trend of the last year is the rising tide of long-term toll road leases. Over 21 states have now passed laws enabling public-private partnerships that can be utilized to build much-needed roads and reduce gridlock.

"The congestion crisis is at a tipping point," said Leonard Gilroy, editor of the Reason report. "By 2030, 11 cities will have traffic that is worse than the gridlock in today's Los Angeles. States are awakening to the fact that if they don't do something soon, it will be too late."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry summed up the feelings of many state leaders in a recent letter to Congress, writing, "I encourage you to examine the fundamental question of why states are looking to engage the private sector in the first place. I will tell you the answer in Texas is that we could no longer wait for anyone else to solve our problems…congestion doesn't wait for Congress to make up its mind."

Reason catalogs the increasing number of states using public-private partnerships to battle the growing congestion crisis and gives detailed answers to many of the most common objections to these arrangements.

The report also finds it was a historic year for airport privatization. Globally, 15 major airports were privatized in 2006, the second-highest annual total ever (there were 21 airport privatization deals in 1998).

In its review of the federal government, the Annual Privatization Report finds existing federal employees and the private sector competed for contracts in 183 instances last year. These competitions produced a savings of $1.3 billion. Since 2002, 12 percent of the federal workforce has faced competition from the private sector and taxpayers have saved $6.9 billion as a result.

Streamlining efforts, based on the President's Management Agenda, resulted in 91 unnecessary federal programs being eliminated in fiscal 2008, saving $5 billion. And another $7 billion of taxpayer money will be saved through major cutbacks to 50 other non-essential programs.

When it comes to local governments, the report highlights Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley has privatized more than two dozen functions and assets. Chicago recently privatized two parking garages, generating $563 million that is being used to pay off debt, improve city parks, and create a reserve fund for future projects.

In education, Reason finds over 4,000 charter schools are serving more than one million children across the country. Charters, which are privately operated schools under contract with government agencies, are proving very popular with families in places like Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin. In New Orleans, charter schools are playing a vital role in getting kids back to school after Hurricane Katrina: nearly 70 percent of the city's children are currently attending charters.

The Reason Foundation report flags the privatization of state lotteries as something to keep an eye on in coming years. Texas, Illinois and Indiana were among the states that looked into the concept this year.

CONTENTS
Federal Update... ...................................................................................................... 1
A. Update on the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): PART Nears Full Cycle
Assessing All Federal Programs............................................................................... 1
B. Program Performance Evaluation Continues......................................................... 7
C. Federal Competitive Sourcing Slows, But Continues to Demonstrate Results..........8
Local and State Update. .......................................................................................... 10
A. Local Privatization Update................................................................................. 10
B. State Privatization Update................................................................................ 12
C. State Budget Outlook.........................................................................................17
D. State and Local Tax Burdens Hit 25-Year High..................................................... 19
E. New Accounting Rule Shines Light on Government Liabilities..............................20
Surface Transportation. ..........................................................................................22
A. Building Roads to Reduce Traffic Congestion in America's Cities:
How Much and at What Cost?................................................................................ 22
B. Long-Term Toll Road Concessions: An Overview.................................................. 25
C. Privatization of Existing Toll Roads..................................................................... 29
D. New PPP Toll Roads & Toll Lanes.........................................................................31
E. International Toll Road Developments................................................................ 35
F. Answers to the Most Common Objections to PPPs............................................... 39
Air Transportation... ................................................................................................44
A. Global Airport Privatization...............................................................................44
B. U.S. Airport Privatization...................................................................................46
C. U.S. Airport Security.........................................................................................48
D. Global Air Traffic Control................................................................................... 49
E. U.S. Air Traffic Control........................................................................................51
Education and Child Welfare ................................................................................... 55
A. School Choice Update....................................................................................... 55
B. No Choices Left Behind: Restructuring California's Lowest-Performing Schools....62
C. Experimenting With School Choice: A Tale of Two California Districts................... 63
D. Child Welfare Privatization Update....................................................................66
E. The Case for Privatizing University Housing........................................................ 72
Emerging Issues ..................................................................................................... 75
A. State Lottery Privatization................................................................................. 75
B. Government Transparency................................................................................. 77
Water & Wastewater....... ........................................................................................81
A. Public Works Financing Issues 11th Annual Water Privatization Report................. 81
B. U.S. House of Representatives Passes Water Funds............................................ 81
C. World Bank: New Generation of Privatization?....................................................82
Telecommunications.. .............................................................................................84
A. States Push for Video Franchise Reform.............................................................84
B. Push for Network Neutrality Regulation Loses Momentum ................................. 87
C. Problems Emerging with Municipal WiFi.............................................................88
D. Lessons Learned from Provo's Municipal Broadband..........................................89
E. A Dynamic Perspective on Government Broadband............................................. 92
Land Use and Property Rights.. ...............................................................................95
A. Eminent Domain Reform Update........................................................................ 95
B. Measure 37 Rewrite Sent to Voters....................................................................102
C. Arizona's Proposition 207: The New Standard for Regulatory Takings Reform......104
D. Sustainable Development in Urban Planning: The Case for a Market-Based Approach...... 108
Public Health and Safety.. ......................................................................................110
A. Corrections Update.......................................................................................... 110
B. Journal Releases 200-City EMS Survey.............................................................. 112
______________________________
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                  
****************************************

****************************************

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 : 10:15 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
________________________________________________________________________

Art/Works - American Labor Graphics
Lincoln Cushing and Timothy W. Drescher
to be published by Cornell University Press in 2008
http://www.docspopuli.org/ArtWorks.html

READ about this upcoming book at the URL above. Note the following, however --

...unlike almost every other full color art book published these days,
at the authors' request this will be printed at a North American union shop.. http://www.docspopuli.org/articles/UnionLabels/Use_the_union_label.html

In order to keep this book affordable (expected retail price should be around $25) so it gets into the hands of the working people that will appreciate it most, Cornell University Press needs a subsidy (known in the publishing industry as "subvention") of $20,000. The Fund for Labor Culture and History has graciously agreed to serve as nonprofit fiscal agent.

We need your help to spread the word about this project and to raise the subvention funds. Please ask your union local, international, or labor-support organization to help us bring these important works before the public by contributing to the fundraising or placing advance bulk orders. All donations are tax-deductible ­ please make checks out to "Art/Works c/o Fund for Labor Culture and History."

Thank you.

In solidarity,

Lincoln Cushing and Tim Drescher

Art/Works
www.docspopuli.com/ArtWorks.html
822 Santa Barbara Road, Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 418-5193

______________________________
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
****************************************