Monday, April 30, 2012
[IWS] ILO: WORLD OF WORK REPORT 2012 [30 April 2012]
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)
WORLD OF WORK REPORT 2012 [30 April 2012]
http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/world-of-work/lang--en/index.htm
or
http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/world-of-work/WCMS_179453/lang--en/index.htm
or
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_179453.pdf
[full-text, 128 pages]
The World of Work Report 2012 provides a comprehensive analysis of recent labour market and social trends, assesses risks of social unrest and presents employment projections for the next five years. The report emphasizes that while employment has begun to recover slowly, job quality is deteriorating and there is a growing sense of unfairness. Moreover, given the pressure on governments to rein in expenditure, policy efforts have focused on structural reforms to boost employment creation. However, if policy instruments are not carefully designed, they could exacerbate the employment situation and aggravate further equity concerns, with potentially long-lasting adverse consequences for both the economy and society.
The report addresses the following questions:
• To what extent has the slow recovery aggravated social conditions, including falling incomes, deepening poverty and worsening inequality?
• Have countries gone too far, too fast with fiscal consolidation? How should they support recovery while meeting fiscal goals in the medium term?
• What can be expected from recent labour market reforms?
• How can investment be boosted so as to ensure a long-lasting recovery in both the economy and jobs?
• What have been the barriers to implementing a more job-centred and equity-enhancing policy approach? Why has the business-as-usual scenario maintained its centrality despite the increasing risk of social unrest?
This report calls for a carefully designed policy approach that takes into consideration the urgent need to create quality jobs while at the same time laying the ground for a more productive, fairer economy and labour market.
Press Release 29 April 2012
No recovery in sight for labour markets, warns ILO
http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/press-and-media-centre/news/WCMS_179449/lang--en/index.htm
GENEVA (ILO News) –Despite signs that economic growth has resumed in some regions, the global employment situation is alarming and shows no sign of recovery in the near future, says the International Labour Organization (ILO).
The ILO’s “World of Work Report 2012: Better Jobs for a Better Economy” says that around 50 million jobs are still missing compared to the situation that existed before the crisis. It also warns that a new and more problematic phase of the global jobs crisis is emerging.
First, this is due to the fact that many governments, especially in advanced economies, have shifted their priority to a combination of fiscal austerity and tough labour market reforms. The report says such measures are having devastating consequences on labour markets in general and job creation in particular. They have also mostly failed to reduce fiscal deficits.
The narrow focus of many Eurozone countries on fiscal austerity is deepening the jobs crisis and could even lead to another recession in Europe”, said Mr. Raymond Torres, Director of the ILO Institute for International Labour Studies and lead author of the report.
Countries that have chosen job-centred macroeconomic policies have achieved better economic and social outcomes”, added Mr. Torres. “Many of them have also become more competitive and have weathered the crisis better than those that followed the austerity path. We can look carefully at the experience of those countries and draw lessons.”
Second, in advanced economies, many jobseekers are demoralized and are losing skills, something which is affecting their chances of finding a new job. Also, small companies have limited access to credit, which in turn is depressing investment and preventing employment creation. In these countries, especially in Europe, job recovery is not expected before the end of 2016 – unless there is a dramatic shift in policy direction.
Third, in most advanced economies, many of the new jobs are precarious. Non-standard forms of employment are on the rise in 26 out of the 50 advanced economies with available information.
There are, however, a few countries that managed to generate jobs while improving the quality of employment, or at least one aspect of it. For example, in Brazil, Indonesia and Uruguay employment rates have increased while the incidence of informal employment has declined. This was mainly due to the introduction of well-designed employment and social policies.
Fourth, the social climate has aggravated in many parts of the world and may entail further social unrest. According to the report’s Social Unrest Index, 57 out of 106 countries with available information showed a risk of increased social unrest in 2011 compared to 2010. The two regions with the largest increases are Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa.
The report says that fiscal austerity combined with labour market deregulation will not promote employment prospects in the short term. In general, there is no clear link between labour market reforms and higher employment levels. Moreover, some recent reforms – especially in Europe – have reduced job stability and exacerbated inequalities while failing to create jobs.
However, the report argues that if a job-friendly policy-mix of taxation and increased expenditure in public investment and social benefits is put in place, approximately 2 million jobs could be created over the next year in advanced economies.
Other main findings of the report include:
- Employment rates have increased in only 5 of 36 advanced economies (Germany, Israel, Luxembourg, Malta and Poland) since 2007.
- Youth unemployment rates have increased in about 80 per cent of advanced countries and in two-thirds of developing countries.
- Poverty rates have increased in half of developed economies and in one-third of developing economies, while inequality rose in half of developed countries and one-fourth of developing economies.
- On average, more than 40 per cent of jobseekers in advanced economies have been without work for more than a year. The majority of developing economies show a decline in both long-term unemployment and inactivity rates.
- Involuntary part-time employment has increased in two-thirds of advanced economies. Temporary employment has also risen in more than half of these economies.
- The share of informal employment stands at more than 40 per cent in two-thirds of emerging and developing countries.
- In 26 out of the 40 countries for which information is available, the proportion of workers covered by a collective agreement declined between 2000 and 2009.
- 28 per cent of the selected group of emerging and developing countries implemented policies to reduce social benefits during the crisis compared to 65 per cent in advanced economies
- At 19.8 per cent of GDP in 2010, global investment remains 3.1 percentage points lower than the historical average, with a more pronounced downward trend in advanced economies. In all regions, investment in small firms has been impacted disproportionately by the global crisis.
****************************
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] IADB: {Latin America] THE SKILLS GAP: TEENS IN THE WORKFORCE [23 April 2012]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
IDEA
Ideas for Development in the Americas, Volume 27:
The Skills Gap: Teens in the Workforce
http://www.iadb.org/en/research-and-data/publication-details,3169.html?pub_id=IDB-NW-105
or
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=36820616
[full-text, 12 pages]
Abstract:
This edition of IDEA focuses on secondary education in Latin America and examines the serious mismatch between what employers are seeking in terms of knowledge and skills, and what young people are actually learning in the region's schools. It draws on the findings of a new IDB book, Disconnected: Skills, Education and Employment in Latin America, and what they imply for public policy in education throughout the region.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
Friday, April 27, 2012
[IWS} EC: HEALTH-EU: [EU PUBLIC HEALTH PORTAL] Your gateway to trustworthy information on public health [revamped 25 April 2012]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
European Commission (EC)
HEALTH-EU: Your gateway to trustworthy information on public health
The official EU Public Health Portal has been revamped. [25 April 2012]
http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/index_en.htm
Its new design aims at attracting new visitors and at further raising awareness about public health issues.
The portal also hosts a section on health and safety at work.
http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/my_environment/at_work/index_en.htm
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] USCC: CHINA’S EVOLVING SPACE CAPABILITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS [27 April 2012]
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.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC)
CHINA'S EVOLVING SPACE CAPABILITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS [27 April 2012]
http://www.uscc.gov/RFP/2012/USCC_China-Space-Program-Report_April-2012.pdf
[full-text, 85 pages]
Press Release 27 April 2012
http://www.uscc.gov/pressreleases/2012/12_4_27.pdf
REPORT: CHINA'S EVOLVING SPACE CAPABILITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS Today the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report entitled CHINA'S EVOLVING SPACE CAPABILITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS. The report details significant advances in China's space program. This report was prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission by the Project 2049 Institute. The report is available online at www.uscc.gov. Among other things, the report concludes that: · Given asymmetries in reliance on space systems, even relative increases in Chinese space capabilities could present challenges for the United States. · The Chinese military manages China's space program and there is significant overlap between civilian and military space operations, which mutually reinforce one another. · Over the next 10-15 years, China is likely to develop more advanced precision strike assets, integrated with persistent space-based surveillance, a single integrated air and space picture, and a more survivable communications architecture, which could enhance China's confidence in enforcing a broader range of territorial claims around China's periphery. · China is pressing forward with an ambitious counterspace program, including ground- and space-based surveillance systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and kinetic kill vehicles. · The possibility of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait remains the principal strategic concern of Chinese national security policy makers, defense planners, and acquisition authorities. The following is the Commission's summary of the report: REPORT SUMMARY The People's Republic of China (PRC) has made significant advances in its space program and is emerging as a space power. With preservation of its monopoly on power as an overriding goal, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bolsters its legitimacy through achievements in space. The Chinese military manages China's space program and there is significant overlap between civilian and military space operations, which mutually reinforce one another. An increasingly sophisticated R&D and industrial establishment supplies the People's Liberation Army (PLA) with military space systems. The PLA General Armaments Department (GAD) appears to oversee space systems acquisitions and operations. Other important organizations in the space program include the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) and China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC). As a rough NASA counterpart, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) facilitates international exchanges and cooperative programs with other space-faring nations. The PLA is rapidly improving its space and counterspace capabilities in order to advance CCP interests and defend against perceived challenges to sovereignty and territorial integrity. Because Taiwan's democratic system of government – an alternative to mainland China's authoritarian model -- presents an existential challenge to the CCP, the PLA relies on military coercion to compel concessions on sovereignty. The possibility of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait remains the principal strategic concern of Chinese national security policy makers, defense planners, and acquisition authorities. China has made considerable progress in advancing its space capabilities. A survivable, growing space-based sensor architecture, able to transmit reconnaissance data to ground sites in China in near real time, could be used to facilitate the PLA's ability to carry out long-range precision strikes with growing lethality and speed. Its space-based sensor development is focused on surveillance and targeting. The PLA may augment existing space-based assets with microsatellites launched on solid-fueled launch vehicles. Chinese R&D investments include dedicated military communications satellites able to transmit high volumes of data to a wide variety of users and to support operations at increasingly extended ranges from China's coast, a constellation of navigation satellites that further enhances China's operational scope, foreign satellite communications monitoring systems, electronic countermeasure systems to disrupt an opponent's use of space-based systems, and the capability for physical destruction of satellites in orbit. Chinese space system development is intimately connected with R&D investment into next generation extended range precision strike systems. Over the next 10-15 years, China is likely to develop more advanced precision strike assets, integrated with persistent space-based surveillance, a single integrated air and space picture, and survivable communications architecture, which could enable greater confidence in contesting a broader range of sovereignty and territorial claims around China's periphery. China's interest in space also is driven by a requirement to field countermeasures against advanced U.S. long-range precision strike capabilities, which are expected to come more fully online over the next 10-15 years. Such capabilities enable the PLA to conduct military operations at increasingly greater distances from Chinese shores, which may complicate U.S. freedom of action in the Asia-Pacific region.
| ||
| Visit www.uscc.gov for transcripts of previous hearings, research reports, the Commission's annual reports to the Congress, and other information about the Commission's activities. Follow the Commission on Facebook to get the latest news and announcements from the USCC. |
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] JILPT [JAPAN]: RESEARCH REPORT SUMMARIES (IN ENGLISH)--RECENT REPORTS
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
________________________________________________________________________
Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JIPT)
Research Reports |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| JILPT regularly publishes Reserach Reports as results of various researches and studies conducted, originally in Japanese. Listed below are summaries of selected issues provided in English translation. Original reports (only in Japanese) are available from here. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] Word Bank: FOOD PRICE WATCH: Food Prices Rise Again on Higher Oil Prices and Adverse Weather [25 April 2012]
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
FOOD PRICE WATCH [25 April 2012]
or
[full-text, 6 pages]
Press Release 25 April 2012
Food Prices Rise Again on Higher Oil Prices and Adverse Weather
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23180612~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html
MAIN MESSAGES:
Global food prices have increased by 8% in the last four months since December 2011, and in March 2012 were only 6% below their February 2011 historical peak. All key food prices have increased, except for rice.
Increasing international oil prices, adverse weather conditions, Asia's strong demand for food imports, and the persistent European financial crisis have contributed to this increase, notwithstanding the projected bumper harvests of rice and coarse grains and the corresponding increase in ending food stocks.
Domestic prices remain high in many parts of the world, with the magnitude of increases typically exceeding price declines across countries. If the current production forecasts for 2012/13 do not materialize, global food prices could reach higher levels, underscoring the need to remain vigilant and improve the monitoring of early signals of global and regional crises.
JUMP TO SECTION: Global Price Trends | Toward a New Crisis?
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] CRS: DOMESTIC CONTENT LEGISLATION: THE BUY AMERICAN ACT AND COMPLEMENTARY LITTLE BUY AMERICAN PROVISIONS [25 April 2012]
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)
Domestic Content Legislation: The Buy American Act and Complementary Little Buy American Provisions
John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney
April 25, 2012
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42501.pdf
[full-text, 19 pages]
Summary
Congress has broad authority to place conditions on the purchases made by the federal
government or with federal dollars. One of many conditions that it has placed on direct
government purchases is a requirement that they be produced in the United States. The most well
known of these requirements is the Buy American Act, which is the major domestic preference
statute governing procurement by the federal government. The Buy American Act applies to
direct purchases by the federal government of more than $3,000, providing their purchase is
consistent with the public interest, the items are reasonable in cost, and they are for use in the
United States. The act requires that “substantially all” of the acquisition be attributable to
American-made components. Regulations have interpreted this requirement to mean that at least
50% of the cost must be attributable to American content. While the act has only been
substantively amended four times since its enactment in 1933, every Congress in the intervening
years has seen fit to enact some form of additional domestic preference legislation.
Other domestic preference statutes, known as “Little Buy American Acts,” either impose a higher
domestic content requirement on procurements that are covered by the Buy American Act or
apply to indirect purchases (i.e., purchases not made by a federal entity, but which are made with
federal funds). The Buy America Act and the Berry Amendment, the most commonly recognized
of the Little Buy American Acts, are representative of the two most prominent categories of Little
Buy American Acts. The majority of Little Buy American Acts govern purchases not directly
made by a federal entity, but which use federal funds. The Buy America Act, which attaches a
domestic content requirement to purchases made with federal transportation funds, is illustrative
of this type of legislation. Unless the definitions of the Buy American Act are referenced, these
provisions generally require the purchase of 100% American-made products.
The second most common category of Little Buy American Act affects certain direct purchases of
the federal government (i.e., ones that are governed by the Buy American Act), for which
Congress has decided a greater percentage of American content should be required, as opposed to
the standard 50%. The Berry Amendment is probably the most recognized legislation in this
category. The Berry Amendment is a “super percentage” statute which limits the Department of
Defense when purchasing certain goods to such goods that are 100% American in origin.
This report summarizes (1) the Buy American Act, what it does and does not cover; (2) the Little
Buy American Acts found in permanent law, emphasizing what they govern, major exceptions
and why Congress felt them necessary in light of the requirements of the Buy American Act; and
(3) the temporary Little Buy American provision found in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
The Buy American Act .................................................................................................................... 2
Little Buy American Acts in Permanent Law.................................................................................. 2
Domestic Content Requirements for Non-Direct Purchases ..................................................... 3
Buy America Act: Restrictions on Department of Transportation Funds............................ 3
Other Restricted Funds and/or Entities ............................................................................... 6
Super Percentage Requirements ................................................................................................ 8
The Berry Amendment: 10 U.S.C. §§ 2533a and 2533b..................................................... 8
Other Department of Defense Buy American Requirements: 10 U.S.C. § 2534 .............. 10
6 U.S.C. § 453b: Department of Homeland Security........................................................ 11
Veterans’ Burial Flags: 38 U.S.C. § 2301.......................................................................... 12
Provisions Which Encourage the Use of American Made Goods ........................................... 12
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: 7 U.S.C. § 1506(p)................................................. 12
Other Department of Agriculture Related Entities: 7 U.S.C. Ch. 98................................. 12
Housing Assistance Programs: 12 U.S.C § 1735e-1 ......................................................... 12
Small Business Financial Assistance Under the Small Business Act: 15 U.S.C. § 661............ 13
Arson Prevention Grants: 15 U.S.C. § 2221 ..................................................................... 13
Educate America Act: 20 U.S.C §§ 5801 et seq................................................................ 13
School Lunch Program Funds: 42 U.S.C. § 1760 ............................................................. 13
Domestic Content Requirements in Procurements of Products for Use Outside the United States.......... 14
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: 22 U.S.C. § 2381........................................................... 14
Engraving and Printing Currency , Postage Stamps, and Security Documents for
Foreign Governments: 31 U.S.C. § 5114 ....................................................................... 14
Renewable Energy Technology Transfer Program: 42 U.S.C. § 13316 ............................ 14
Clean Coal Technology Transfer Program: 42 U.S.C. § 13362 ........................................ 15
Environmental Technology Transfer Program: 42 U.S.C. § 13387................................... 15
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: P.L. 111-5.......................................................... 16
________________________________________________________________________
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.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
[IWS] IFC: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT--AN UPDATE [15 March 2012]
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 Finance Corporation (IFc)
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT--AN UPDATE [15 March 2012]
By Stijn Claessens and Burcin Yurtoglu
http://www.gcgf.org/ifcext/cgf.nsf/Content/Focus10
or
http://www.gcgf.org/ifcext/cgf.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Focus10CG&Dev/$FILE/Focus10_CG&Development.pdf
[full-text, 108 pages]
Press Release 15 March 2012
IFC Report Finds Better Corporate Governance Helps Strengthen Economic Development
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/pressroom/ifcpressroom.nsf/0/ADFE9051E43069AD852579C300511801?OpenDocument
[excerpt from first URL above]
What do we know about the links between economic development and corporate governance in emerging markets? Stijn Claessens and Burcin Yurtoglu have sifted through scores of academic studies on various countries, sectors, and business organizations - from state-owned enterprises to publicly listed companies - to determine how corporate governance can influence economic development and well being, and what is needed to promote good practices.
The Focus 10 draws on new evidence that has become available since Focus 1: Corporate Governance and Development was published in 2003. While the paper reviews research literature, it is written to be accessible to the nonacademic audience: board members, investors, government regulators, development professionals, and other CG practitioners.
Download Focus 10 Corporate Governance and Development - An Update
Research findings sited in the Focus include:
Improved corporate governance practices increase firm share prices; hence, better-governed firms appear to enjoy a lower cost of capital.
Operational performance is higher in better corporate governance countries, although the evidence is less strong.
Well governed companies have less volatile stock prices in times of crisis.
Companies with boards composed of a higher fraction of outsider or independent directors usually have a higher market valuation.
Improvements in corporate governance quality lead to higher GDP growth, productivity growth, and the increased ratio of investment to GDP. The effect is particularly pronounced for industries that are most dependent on external finance.
When a country’s overall corporate governance and property rights systems are weak, voluntary and market corporate governance mechanisms have limited effectiveness. Proper regulatory framework and enforcement mechanisms are crucial to promote good CG practices.
Large, more concentrated ownership can be beneficial, unless there is a disparity of control and cash flow rights.
The quality of shareholder protection positively correlates with the development of countries’ capital markets.
Better corporate governance leads to a better developed financial system, which, in turn, is associated with greater access to financial services for small and medium enterprises and poorer people.
The paper concludes by identifying several main policy and research issues that require further study. For example, more research is needed on family-owned, state-owned or controlled firms that predominate in many sectors and economies.
Download Focus 10
Please send your QUESTIONS or COMMENTS for the authors to avolynets@ifc.org, and we will include them in an upcoming live Q&E session with the authors, to be announced shortly.
For more information on the topic, visit Emerging Markets Corporate Governance Research Network and Focus publication series.
Authors
Stijn Claessens is assistant director in the research department of the International Monetary Fund, where he heads the Macro-Financial Unit. He is a professor of international finance policy at the University of Amsterdam, and chair of the Emerging Markets Corporate Governance Research Network.
Burcin Yurtoglu is a professor of corporate finance at the WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management in Vallendar, Germany.
Table of Contents
Foreword by Ira Millstein ................................................................................................................v
Abstract: Corporate Governance and Development...................................................................viii
1. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................1
2. What is Corporate Governance, and Why is it Receiving More Attention?.............................3
What is corporate governance?.....................................................................................................3
Why has corporate governance received more attention lately?.....................................................5
3. The Link between Corporate Governance and Other Foundations of Development ............8
The link between finance and growth...........................................................................................8
The link between the development of financial systems and growth.............................................9
The link between legal foundations and growth.......................................................................... 11
The role of competition and of output and input markets in disciplining firms............................. 12
The role of ownership structures and group affiliation................................................................. 13
4. How Does Corporate Governance Matter for Growth and Development?...........................17
Increased access to financing....................................................................................................... 17
Higher firm valuation and better operational performance..........................................................20
Less volatile stock prices and reduced risk of financial crises.........................................................23
Better functioning financial markets and greater cross-border investments..................................24
Better relations with other stakeholders.......................................................................................25
Stakeholder management.................................................................................................27
Social issue participation...................................................................................................27
5. Corporate Governance Reform..................................................................................................30
Recent country-level reforms and their impact.............................................................................30
Legal reforms..............................................................................................................................31
Corporate governance codes and convergence............................................................................32
The role of firm-level voluntary corporate governance actions.....................................................33
Voluntary adoption of corporate governance practices.....................................................33
Boards..............................................................................................................................35
Cross-listings....................................................................................................................35
Other mechanisms............................................................................................................36
The role of political economy factors...........................................................................................37
6. Conclusions and Areas for Future Research.............................................................................41
Ownership structures and relationships with performance........................................................... 41
Corporate governance and stakeholders’ roles.............................................................................43
Enforcement, both private and public, and dynamic changes.......................................................44
7. Commentary by Philip Koh.........................................................................................................46
8. Tables .........................................................................................................................................50
Table 1: Summary of Key Studies on Ownership Structures.........................................................50
Table 2: Overview of Selected Studies on the Relationship between
Ownership Structures and Corporate Performance........................................................58
Table 3: Overview of Selected Studies on the Effects of Legal Changes......................................65
Table 4: Overview of Selected Studies on the Relationship between
CG Indexes and Performance.........................................................................................67
Table 5: Summary of Key Empirical Studies on Boards of Directors..............................................70
Table 6: Overview of Selected Studies on Cross-Listings..............................................................72
Table 7: Overview of Selected Studies on Political Connections................................................... 74
9. References....................................................................................................................................76
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] World Bank/IMF: GLOBAL BANKING LAW DATABASE (GBLD)
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
________________________________________________________________________
Joint project of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
GLOBAL BANKING LAW DATABASE (GBLD)
ABOUT
http://www.gbld.org/index.asp?mode=32
The Global Banking Law Database (GBLD) is a joint project of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The GBLD consists of a collection of commercial banking, central bank, and deposit insurance laws of jurisdictions that are representative of the regions of the world as well as international financial centers. The laws are available in English in both MS Word and PDF (Adobe Acrobat) formats.
The GBLD features a topic list based on the Basel Core Principles. The topic list consists of 35 topics, such as the definition of a bank, bank licensing, penalties, and consolidated supervision. Using the topic list, the relevant articles or sections of the laws of each of the jurisdictions contained in the GBLD have been arranged under each topic. This allows the user to quickly find relevant provisions in each of the laws, as well as to compare the laws of two jurisdictions on a single screen. For example the laws of Spain may be compared with those of Canada side-by-side on the same screen.
Presenting the laws in MS Word format allows the user to download the full text of each of the laws, to copy those laws into another document, and to do word searches using the Edit function of MS Word. The laws are also presented in PDF format, which is available on the Internet to be downloaded without charge, since not all users have access to MS Word. The laws may be printed directly from the screen in either format.
We are grateful for the support of the legal departments and banking supervisors of the central banks and bank supervisory agencies of the contributing jurisdictions without which the GBLD would not have been possible. Their commitment to provide updates as necessary is critical to the integrity of the GBLD as well as to its long-term utility.
Please note that this is the initial phase of the GLBD. We intend to expand the GBLD as we have support from additional jurisdictions and to present the laws in additional languages.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] EIRO: HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS SECTOR: EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS [24 April 2012]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)
European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO)
COMPARATIVE STUDY
Employment and industrial relations in the hotels and restaurants sector [24 April 2012]
April 2012
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1109011s/index.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1109011s/tn1109011s.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/eiro/tn1109011s/tn1109011s.pdf
[full-text, 52 pages]
The hotels and restaurants industry (Horeca) is a labour-intensive sector, dominated by small businesses and characterised by low levels of affiliation to employer organisations and trade unions. Working conditions in the sector can be very different from those in other service industries. This report describes and analyses the main challenges facing the sector, such as the impact of the crisis on employment, undeclared work, employment of young workers, seasonal work and working hours, qualifications and skills development, and health and safety at work. The study explores the state of social dialogue in the sector, highlighting the contribution of the social partners to addressing the current challenges. Based on contributions from the national centres of the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), the study covers the sector across EU27 countries and Norway.
The study was compiled on the basis of individual national reports submitted by the EIRO correspondents. The text of each of these national reports is available below. The reports have not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The national reports were drawn up in response to a questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.
Contributing articles:
CONTENTS
Introduction
Main drivers of change
Impact of the crisis on the sector
Views of the social partners on social and economic trends
Characteristics of employment and working conditions
Industrial relations in the sector
Contribution of social dialogue to addressing challenges in the sector
Commentary
References
________________________________________________________________________
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.
