Wednesday, March 31, 2010
[IWS] ILO: INTERNATIONAL LABOUR MIGRATION: A RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH [31 March 2010]
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 Labour Organization (ILO)
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR MIGRATION: A RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH [31 March 2010]
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/rights_based_approach.pdf
[full-text, 324 pages]
Press Release 31 March 2010
A “rights-based approach” is required to meet the needs of the world’s 105 million migrant workers http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang--en/WCMS_125324/index.htm
GENEVA (ILO News) – Amid growing challenges due to the global economic crisis, a new ILO study highlights the need to adopt a “rights-based approach” to provide a “fair deal” for the world’s 105 million migrant workers.
The new study, entitled “International Labour Migration: A rights-based approach", examines trends in international labour migration, its impacts on origin and destination countries, and conditions of work experienced by migrant workers. The study also explores how standards can be used in the formulation and implementation of migration policies and practices.
The study brings out the positive contributions made by migrant workers to both their countries of employment and origin. However, it also highlights the decent work and protection deficits they still experience today, including low wages, non-payment of wages, unsafe working environments, a virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom of association and workers’ rights, discrimination and xenophobia.
“International migration is primarily a labour market, employment and decent work issue, and less a security and asylum seeker-refugee issue”, says Ibrahim Awad, chief of the ILO’s International Migration Branch. “The challenge is to govern migration in such a way that it can serve as a force for growth and prosperity in both origin and destination countries, while protecting and benefitting migrant workers themselves.”
“The current global financial and economic crisis highlights the role that the ILO should play in the international arena in looking at the integration of employment and financial policies,” Mr. Awad said.
The ILO study also says:
• International migrants estimated at 214 million in 2010 represent only three per cent of the global population;
• Women make up almost 50 per cent of international migrants;
• Migrant workers (economically active among total migrant population) are about 105 million in 2010; and,
• Migrant workers – who migrate for employment - and their families account for about 90 per cent of total international migrants.
The study concludes that national and international governance of labour migration should recognize that most migration is in search of decent work, and thus provide greater legal opportunities for labour mobility; that policies should be based on recognition of mutual benefits to both origin and destination countries; that protection of migrant rights is central to realizing development benefits of migration for all parties; that comprehensive approaches to irregular migration are needed including addressing its root causes.
The study also calls for bilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation between governments, social partners, and other stakeholders concerned with migration to improve the governance of the migration process, ensure protection of migrant workers, and secure development benefits of labour migration for all parties.
The study draws upon recent international debates on the issue of labour migration, as reflected in the 2004 ILO Resolution on a fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy, the related ILO plan of action for migrant workers, and the ILO’s Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration adopted in 2006. The development of the ILO Multilateral Framework was a major step by the ILO in defining a rights-based approach to labour migration.
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
[IWS] CECC: GOOGLE & INTERNET CONTROL in CHINA: A NEXUS BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS & TRADE? [24 March 2010]
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-Executive Commission on China (CECC)
"Google and Internet Control in China: A Nexus Between Human Rights and Trade?"
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
http://www.cecc.gov/pages/hearings/2010/20100324/index.php?PHPSESSID=c245eb28528a6fc5c9b1130d0fe03645View a recorded webcast of this hearing here.
Witnesses: [CLICK on WITNESS NAME for TRANSCRIPT]
Alan Davidson, Director of U.S. Public Policy, Americas, Google, Inc.
Christine Jones, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, The Go Daddy Group
Sharon Hom, Executive Director, Human Rights in China
Edward Black, President and CEO, Computer & Communications Industry Association
Testimony submitted for the record by Rebecca MacKinnon, Visiting Fellow, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University
The recent Google controversy with China raises the question of whether China's regulation of the Internet is both a human rights and a trade issue. Witnesses will examine the challenges and hazards China's regulation of the Internet poses both to advocates of free expression and to foreign companies doing business in China; and possible ways for policymakers and private actors to respond to China's regulation of the Internet from both the human rights and trade perspectives. Witnesses will include technology industry representatives and human rights advocates.
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
[IWS] CHINA’S ACTIVITIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS [online 30 March 2010]
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
________________________________________________________________________
CHINA'S ACTIVITIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS
HEARING BEFORE THE U.S.CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
_________
February 4, 2010 [online 30 March 2010]
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2010hearings/transcripts/10_02_04_trans/10_02_04_trans.pdf
(full-text, 214 pages]
CONTENTS
_____
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2010
CHINA'S ACTIVITIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS
Opening remarks of Chairman Daniel M. Slane ……………………………………...1
Opening remarks of Vice Chairman Carolyn Bartholomew, Hearing Cochair………..2
Opening remarks of Commissioner Larry M. Wortzel, Hearing Cochair…………….14
PANEL I: CONGRESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Statement of Dana Rohrabacher, a U.S. Congressman from the State of
California ……………………………………………………………………………...3
Prepared statement…………………………………………………………………...7
Statement of J. Randy Forbes, a U.S. Congressman from the State of Virginia………9
Statement of Madeleine Z. Bordallo, a U.S. Congresswoman from the Territory of
Guam………………………………………………………………………………….12
Statement of Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, a U.S. Congressman from the Territory of
Samoa ………………………………………………………………………………...41
PANEL II: ADMINISTRATIIVE PERSPECTIVES
Statement of the Honorable David B. Shear, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC……………..16
Prepared statement………………………………………………………………….18
Statement of the Honorable Robert Scher, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for South and Southeast Asia, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC ……...23
Prepared statement………………………………………………………………….27
Panel II: Discussion, Questions and Answers …………………………………........38
PANEL III: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Statement of Ms. Catharin E. Dalpino, Visiting Associate Professor; Director
of Thai Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, DC…………………………58
Prepared statement………………………………………………………………....61
vi
Statement of Mr. Ernest Z. Bower, Senior Advisor and Director, Southeast Asia
Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC………..68
Prepared statement…………………………………………………………….....71
Statement of Mr. Walter Lohman, Director, Asia Studies Center, The Heritage
Foundation, Washington, DC………………………………………………………80
Prepared statement……………………………………………………………….83
Panel III: Discussion, Questions and Answers ………………………………90
PANEL IV: SECURITY ASPECTS
Statement of Dr. Andrew Scobell, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas………………………………………………………………...109
Prepared statement…………………………………………………………………..111
Statement of Mr. Bronson Percival, Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic Studies,
CNA, Alexandria, Virginia……………………………………………………………121
Prepared statement…………………………………………………………………..123
Dr. Richard P. Cronin, Senior Associate, Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, DC..130
Prepared statement…………………………………………………………………..133
Panel IV: Discussion, Questions and Answers……………………………………….147
PANEL V: CHINA AND REGIONAL FORUMS
Statement of Dr. Ellen L. Frost, Visiting Fellow, Peterson Institute for International
Economics, and Adjunct Research Fellow, INSS National Defense University,
Washington, DC…………………………………………………………………...161
Prepared statement………………………………………………………………166
Statement of Dr. Donald E. Weatherbee, Professor Emeritus, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina………………………………………………182
Prepared statement………………………………………………………………185
Panel V: Discussion, Questions and Answers……………………………………193
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Statement of Jim Webb, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia………………206
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
[IWS] World Bank: China Quarterly Update, March 2010 [17 March 2010]
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
China Quarterly Update, March 2010 [17 March 2010]
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/CHINAEXTN/Resources/318949-1268688634523/CQU_march2010.pdf
[full-text, 17 pages]
[excerpt]
OVERVIEW
In spite of the global recession, China's economy grew 8.7 percent in 2009. Massive investment‐led
stimulus was key, but real estate investment gained prominence more recently and household
consumption growth has held up very well. The domestic growth momentum continued in the first
months of 2010. Exports declined in 2009 as a whole, even as China gained global market share. With
imports strong, external trade was a major drag on growth in 2009 and the external current account
surplus declined sharply. Exports rebounded strongly through 2009, though, and exceeded the pre‐crisis
level in early 2010. In a heated real estate market, surging property prices triggered policy measures to
expand supply and curb speculation.
We project 9.5 percent GDP growth for this year, with a shift in the composition. Government‐led
investment is bound to decelerate. But, exports are likely to continue to recover amidst a pick up in the
global economy and real estate activity is likely to grow strongly this year. Consumption growth should
remain solid. Inflation is on course to be significant in 2010, after being negative in 2009. But, with
global price pressures likely to be subdued amidst large spare capacity internationally, China's inflation
is unlikely to reach high rates in 2010. We expect the external surplus to remain broadly unchanged this
year.
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
Monday, March 29, 2010
[IWS] Dublin Foundation: FAMILY LIFE AND WORK: 2ND EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY [24 March 2010]
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)
Second European Quality of Life Survey: Family life and work [24 March 2010]
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1002.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2010/02/en/1/EF1002EN.pdf
[full-text, 96 pages]
Author: Kotowska, Irena E.; Matysiak, Anna; Styrc, Marta; Pailhé, Ariane; Solaz, Anne; Vignoli, Daniele
Summary: Demographic change and labour market developments impact significantly on the family life and work of Europeans, with far-reaching consequences for the future. The policy approach in this area has in recent years focused on increasing the employment rates of women, finding ways for both men and women to achieve a better work–life balance and, more recently, promoting a rise in birth rates. This report explores the subject of work and family life across Europe, looking at ways to find a better balance between the demands of work and family responsibilities. Based on data from the second European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS), conducted by Eurofound in 2007, the report analyses tensions between work demands and household and care tasks, against a background of different institutional settings, labour market structures and cultural factors. The findings point to the need for the introduction of measures to adjust working arrangements to the demands of family life, more equal sharing of care responsibilities between men and women, and the improvement of care services for elderly people in order to support family networks in carrying out their care responsibilities. An executive summary is available.
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
[IWS] Dublin Foundation: FOSTERING SOCIAL INCLUSION: THE ROLE OF THE SOCIAL PARTNERS [29 March 2010]
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)
Foundation Findings: Opening the door - The role of social partners in fostering social inclusion [29 March 2010]
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0944.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2009/44/en/1/EF0944EN.pdf
[full-text, 20 pages]
Author: Foundation
Summary: The EU designated 2010 as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Social exclusion is the consequence of a series of problems affecting an individual or groups, for example unemployment, discrimination, low levels of skills, or low income. Foundation Findings provide pertinent background information and policy pointers for all actors and interested parties engaged in the current European debate on the future of social policy. The contents are based on Foundation research and reflect its autonomous and tripartite structure.
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
[IWS] CRS: THE PROPOSED U.S.-PANAMA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT [22 February 2010]
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)
The Proposed U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement
J. F. Hornbeck, Specialist in International Trade and Finance
February 22, 2010
http://opencrs.com/document/RL32540/2010-02-22/download/1013/
[full-text, 33 pages]
Summary
On June 28, 2007, after two and a half years of negotiation, the United States and Panama signed
a reciprocal free trade agreement (FTA). Negotiations were formally concluded on December 16,
2006, with an understanding that further changes to labor, environment, and intellectual property
rights (IPR) chapters would be made pursuant to future detailed congressional input. These
changes were agreed to in late June 2007, in time for the FTA to be considered under Trade
Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation before it expired on July 1, 2007. TPA allows Congress to
consider trade implementing bills under expedited procedures. Panama’s legislature approved the
FTA 58 to 4 on July 11, 2007. The 110th Congress did not take up the agreement, and so far there
is little indication that the 111th Congress is ready to act on the FTA.
The proposed U.S.-Panama FTA is a comprehensive agreement. Some 88% of U.S. commercial
and industrial exports would become duty-free upon implementation, with remaining tariffs
phased out over a ten-year period. Over 60% of U.S. farms exports to Panama also would achieve
immediate duty-free status, with tariffs and tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on select farm products to be
phased out by year 17 of the agreement. Panama and the United States signed a separate bilateral
agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues that would recognize U.S. food safety
inspection as equivalent to Panamanian standards, which will expedite entry of U.S. meat and
poultry exports. The FTA also consummates understandings on telecommunications, services
trade, government procurement, investment, and intellectual property rights.
The circumstances framing the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA differ considerably from those of two
others that have yet to be considered by Congress. The deep concerns that Congress has
expressed over Colombia’s violence have not been an issue in the Panama FTA debate, which is
framed more by the positive image of a longstanding strategic bilateral relationship based on
Panama’s canal. Nor does Panama compare well with the continuing debate over the proposed
FTA with South Korea, which as a major U.S. trading partner, can affect key industries such as
automobile and beef production. To the contrary, Panama trades little with the United States, even
by Latin American standards, and so the FTA cannot have a major effect on the U.S. economy.
The final text of the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA incorporates specific amendments on key issues
at the behest of congressional leadership. The most significant were adoption of enforceable labor
standards, compulsory adherence to select multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and an
easing of restrictions on developing country access to generic drugs. In these cases, the proposed
U.S.-Panama FTA goes beyond provisions in existing bilateral FTAs and multilateral trade rules,
including those contemplated in the Doha Round.Two other concerns still linger. The first
pertains to a Panamanian labor statute, which some Members of Congress would like to see
amended so that the minimum number of workers required to start a union would be reduced
from 40 to 20, per ILO guidelines. The second relates to questions raised over Panama’s status as
a “tax haven” and its refusal to enter into a tax information exchange treaty. Currently, the
government of Panama is working closely with the USTR to find a mutually acceptable solution
to both these issues. The time frame for completing this process is unclear and may depend in part
on whether the Obama Administration and Congress signal that they are prepared to move ahead
with implementing legislation. For more on Panama, see CRS Report RL30981, Panama:
Political and Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations, by Mark P. Sullivan.
Contents
Panama’s Canal and Economic Relations with the United States..................................................2
Early U.S.-Panama Economic Relations ................................................................................2
The Canal and U.S. Trade Policy...........................................................................................4
Panamanian Trade Relations .......................................................................................................6
Structure and Direction of Panamanian Trade........................................................................6
The Colón Free Zone ......................................................................................................8
U.S.-Panama Merchandise Trade...........................................................................................9
U.S. Foreign Direct Investment ...........................................................................................10
Summary of Trade Negotiations and the Proposed U.S.-Panama FTA........................................ 11
Market Access.....................................................................................................................12
Agricultural Trade.........................................................................................................13
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) ..................................................................14
Textiles and Apparel......................................................................................................15
Government Procurement....................................................................................................16
Investment ..........................................................................................................................16
Services ..............................................................................................................................18
Intellectual Property Rights .................................................................................................18
Pharmaceutical Issues ...................................................................................................19
Labor and Environment.......................................................................................................20
Labor Issues..................................................................................................................21
Panama’s Labor Conditions...........................................................................................23
Environmental Issues ....................................................................................................23
Trade Capacity Building......................................................................................................25
Outlook....................................................................................................................................26
Figures
Figure 1. Map of Panama ............................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Panama Direction of Trade, 2008..................................................................................8
Tables
Table 1. Panama’s Current Account Balance................................................................................7
Table 2. U.S.-Panama Merchandise Trade, 2008..........................................................................9
Table 3. U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in Panama, Mexico, and Central America....................10
Appendixes
Appendix A. Chronology of U.S.-Panama FTA.........................................................................28
Appendix B. Panama: Selected Economic Indicators .................................................................29
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
[IWS] CRS: INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT: DEBATE OVER GOVERNMENT POLICY [23 February 2010]
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)
Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy
Wendy H. Schacht, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
February 23, 2010
http://opencrs.com/document/RL33528/2010-02-23/download/1013/
[full-text, 15 pages]
Summary
There is ongoing interest in the pace of U.S. technological advancement due to its influence on
U.S. economic growth, productivity, and international competitiveness. Because technology can
contribute to economic growth and productivity increases, congressional attention has focused on
how to augment private-sector technological development. Legislative activity over the past 25 or
more years has created a policy for technology development, albeit an ad hoc one. Because of the
lack of consensus on the scope and direction of a national policy, Congress has taken an
incremental approach aimed at creating new mechanisms to facilitate technological advancement
in particular areas and making changes and improvements as necessary.
Congressional action has mandated specific technology development programs and obligations in
federal agencies. Many programs were created based upon what individual committees judged
appropriate within the agencies over which they had authorization or appropriation
responsibilities. However, there has been recent legislative activity directed at eliminating or
significantly curtailing many of these federal efforts. Although, for the most part, this approach
has not been adopted, the budgets for several programs have declined.
The proper role of the federal government in technology development and the competitiveness of
U.S. industry continues to be a topic of congressional debate. Current legislation affecting the
R&D environment have included both direct and indirect measures to facilitate technological
innovation. In general, direct measures are those which involve budget outlays and the provision
of services by government agencies. Indirect measures include financial incentives and legal
changes (e.g., liability or regulatory reform; new antitrust arrangements). As the 111th Congress
develops its budget priorities, the manner by which the government encourages technological
progress in the private sector again may be explored and/or redefined.
Contents
Technology and Competitiveness ................................................................................................1
The Federal Role in Technology Development ............................................................................1
Legislative Initiatives and Current Programs ...............................................................................4
Increased R&D Spending......................................................................................................5
Industry-University Cooperative Efforts..........................................................................6
Joint Industrial Research .................................................................................................8
Commercialization of the Results of Federally Funded R&D...........................................8
Different Approach?............................................................................................................ 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information ......................................................................................................12
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
{IWS] CRS: IMMIGRATION VISA ISSUANCES AND GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION: POLICY AND TRENDS [10 March 2010]
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)
Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends
Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy
March 10, 2010
http://opencrs.com/document/R41104/2010-03-10/download/1013/
[full-text, 31 pages]
Summary
The conventional wisdom is that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, prompted a
substantive change in U.S. immigration policy on visa issuances and the grounds for excluding
foreign nationals from the United States. A series of laws enacted in the 1990s, however, may
have done as much or more to set current U.S. visa policy and the legal grounds for exclusion.
This report’s review of the legislative developments in visa policy over the past 20 years and
analysis of the statistical trends in visa issuances and denials provide a nuanced study of U.S. visa
policy and the grounds for exclusion.
Foreign nationals not already legally residing in the United States who wish to come to the United
States generally must obtain a visa to be admitted. Those admitted on a permanent basis are
known as immigrants or legal permanent residents (LPRs), while those admitted on a temporary
basis are known as nonimmigrants (such as tourists, foreign students, diplomats, temporary
agricultural workers, and exchange visitors). They must first meet a set of criteria specified in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that determine whether they are eligible for admission.
The burden of proof is on the foreign national to establish eligibility for a visa. Conversely,
foreign nationals also must not be deemed inadmissible according to other specified grounds in
§212(a) of the INA. These §212(a) inadmissibility criteria are health-related grounds; criminal
history; security and terrorist concerns; public charge (e.g., indigence); seeking to work without
proper labor certification; illegal entrants and immigration law violations; ineligible for
citizenship; and aliens illegally present or previously removed.
The number of aliens excluded on the basis of §212(a) of the INA has fluctuated over the years.
In FY2008, §212(a) exclusions of prospective nonimmigrants hit 35,403 and surpassed the prior
high point of 34,750 in FY1998. For prospective LPRs, §212(a) exclusions peaked in FY1998
and FY1999, reaching over 89,000 in both years. The §212(a) exclusions of prospective LPRs fell
from FY2000 through FY2003, then began climbing to reach 77,080 in FY2008.
Most LPR petitioners who were excluded on §212(a) grounds from FY1994 through FY2004
were rejected because the Department of State (DOS) determined that the aliens were
inadmissible as likely public charges. By FY2004, the proportion of public charge exclusions had
fallen but remained the top basis for denial. The lack of proper labor certification was another
leading ground for exclusion from FY1994 through FY2004. By FY2008, however, illegal
presence and previous orders of removal from the United States was the leading ground.
Exclusions of nonimmigrant petitions have a somewhat different pattern than that of immigrant
petitions. Violations of immigration law were the leading category from FY1994 through
FY2006, but fell to the second ranking by FY2008. Illegal presence and prior removal became the
leading ground in FY2008. Over time, criminal activity has become a more common ground for
refusal, and has represented a larger portion of exclusions among nonimmigrant petitioners than it
was for immigrant petitioners.
Legislation aimed at comprehensive immigration reform may take a fresh look at the grounds for
excluding foreign nationals enacted over the past two decades. Expanding the grounds for
inadmissibility, conversely, might be part of the legislative agenda among those who support
more restrictive immigration reform policies. More specifically, the case of Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, who allegedly attempted to ignite an explosive device on Northwest Airlines
Flight 253 on December 25, 2009, has heightened scrutiny of the visa process and grounds for
exclusion. This report will be updated as warranted.
Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
Policy Context ......................................................................................................................1
Background ..........................................................................................................................1
Visa Issuance Policy....................................................................................................................2
§221(g) Disqualification .................................................................................................2
§212(a) Exclusion ...........................................................................................................3
Permanent Admissions (Immigrant Visas) .............................................................................3
Procedures ......................................................................................................................4
Trends............................................................................................................................4
Temporary Admissions (Nonimmigrant Visas).......................................................................5
Procedures ......................................................................................................................5
§214(b) Presumption.......................................................................................................6
Trends............................................................................................................................6
Grounds for Exclusion ................................................................................................................9
Brief Legislative History.......................................................................................................9
Communicable Diseases §212(a)(1) ....................................................................................10
Criminal History §212(a)(2)................................................................................................12
Security and Terrorist Concerns §212(a)(3) .........................................................................13
Public Charge §212(a)(4) ....................................................................................................14
Labor Market Protections §212(a)(5)...................................................................................15
Illegal Entrants and Immigration Law Violations §212(a)(6&7)...........................................15
Ineligible for Citizenship §212(a)(8) ...................................................................................16
Illegal Presence or Previously Removed §212(a)(9).............................................................16
Analysis of Visa Inadmissibility Determinations........................................................................18
Inadmissible Immigrants .....................................................................................................18
Inadmissible Nonimmigrants...............................................................................................20
Concluding Observations ..........................................................................................................22
Figures
Figure 1. Initial Determinations on Immigrants Excluded, Disqualified, or Issued Visas, FY1994-FY2008........................5
Figure 2. Initial Determinations on Nonimmigrants Disqualified, Presumed Immigrant, or Issued Visas, FY1994-FY2008 .....................7
Figure 3. Trends in Initial Determinations of §212(a) Ineligibility for LPR and Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants, FY1994-FY2008 .............8
Figure 4. Initial Determinations of LPRs Excluded by Grounds in FY1996, FY2000, FY2004, and FY2008.........................................19
Figure 5. Trends in Initial Determinations of LPR Exclusions for Top 3 Grounds, FY1994-FY2008......................................20
Figure 6. Initial Determinations of Nonimmigrants Excluded by Grounds in FY1996, FY2000, FY2004 and FY2008 ............21
Figure 7. Trends in Initial Determinations of Nonimmigrant Exclusions for Top 4 Grounds, FY1994-FY2008.......................22
Appendixes
Appendix A. Consular Databases for Screening.........................................................................24
Appendix B. Exceptions to the Visa Requirements ....................................................................26
Contacts
Author Contact Information ......................................................................................................27
________________________________________________________________________
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
****************************************
