Do Imports Increase Unemployment? Empirical Estimates That Are Not Model Dependent

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-469
Author(s):  
Jonathan E. Leightner ◽  

Some Ricardian models would predict a fall in unemployment with trade liberalization. In contrast, the Heckscher-Ohlin model (Stolper Samuelson Theorem) would predict trade liberalization would cause a fall in wages for labor scarce countries, resulting in greater unemployment if there are wage rigidities. The choice of which theoretical model is used affects the empirical results obtained. This paper produces estimates of the change in unemployment due to a change in imports that are not model dependent. The estimates produced are total derivatives that capture all the ways that imports and unemployment are correlated. I find that unemployment increases with increased imports for Austria, Greece, Japan, Portugal, South Korea, Slovenia, and Sweden, but that unemployment decreases with increased imports for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, the UK, and the US.

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sirjana Pant ◽  
Rupinder Bagha ◽  
Sarah McGill

Plasma is used by pharmaceutical companies to make plasma-derived medicinal products (PDMPs). PDMPs are used to treat conditions such as immune deficiencies and bleeding disorders. Several PDMPS are included in the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines. According to the WHO, self-sufficiency driven by voluntary (non-remunerated) plasma donations is an important national goal to ensure an adequate supply is secured to meet the needs of the population. Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the Netherlands, and France only allow public or not-for-profit sectors to collect plasma for fractionation. Each of the 5 countries have toll or contract agreements with 1 private commercial plasma fractionator to manufacture PDMPs from the plasma collected within their respective countries. None of these countries pay plasma donors. Donors are only permitted to donate every 2 weeks (24 to 26 times per year) in these 5 countries. Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and the US allow both public and non-for-profit sectors, as well as commercial private plasma collection centres, to operate in the country. Private, not-for-profit, or public plasma collection centres in these 4 countries offer monetary compensation and other in-kind incentives to plasma donors. While the Czech Republic limits plasma donation to every 2 weeks, a much higher frequency of donation is allowed in other countries; up to 50 times per year in Austria, 60 times per year in Germany, and more than 100 times per year in the US. Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and the US (which allow commercial private plasma collectors to operate and pay donors) are 100% self-sufficient in immunoglobulins. These 4 countries collect the most plasma, which is from paid donors. In 2017, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and the US collected 75 litres per 1,000 people, 45 litres per 1,000 people, 36 litres per 1,000 people, and 113 litres per 1,000 people of plasma for fractionation, respectively. Countries that do not pay donors including Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the Netherlands, and France are dependent to some extent on US and European Union donors who are paid for the supply of plasma or imported PDMPs. The limited literature search conducted for the Environmental Scan did not identify publications on events of disease transmission through PDMPs manufactured from either paid or non-renumerated donors’ plasma, the impact of plasma collection centres (including those that do or do not pay donors) on the collection of whole blood or other blood components, or the long-term costs associated with plasma self-sufficiency on the health care system.


2007 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Albro Houpt ◽  
Deborah Goodwin ◽  
Yoshiko Uchida ◽  
Eva Baranyiová ◽  
Jaume Fatjó ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Us ◽  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Geetanjali Bhim

<p>There has been a considerable increase in the use of preventive sentencing in New Zealand since the mid-1980s. It has become widely accepted across Western society that preventive sentencing and supervision regimes are needed to protect the public from dangerous offenders. This thesis examines whether the development and use of preventive sentencing regimes is ethically justified, and if not what changes need to be made in order to alleviate some of the ethical dilemmas associated with indeterminate sentencing regimes. Preventive detention practices in Australia the UK and the US are reviewed to establish general practice regarding the development of legislation, use of risk assessment and the detention of dangerous offenders. This is compared to New Zealand practices, through research and analysis of three preventive detainee case files. The files confirm that the ethics of preventive detention has shifted from protecting the rights of individual offenders to protecting the public from them.</p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Rauh ◽  
Jan Schwalbach

ParlSpeech V2 contains complete full-text vectors of more than 6.3 million parliamentary speeches in the key legislative chambers of Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, covering periods between 21 and 32 years. Meta-data include information on date, speaker, party, and partially agenda item under which a speech was held. This release note provides a more detailed guide to the data.


2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 258
Author(s):  
Philip Cass

Review of Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand's political environment, by Nicky Hagar. Nelson: Craig Potton Publishing, 2014, 166pp. ISBN978-1-927213-36-0.Nicky Hager's revelations of dirty tactics by the National Party will come as no surprise to those numbed by the vicious politics of the US, the UK or Australia, but they have raised hackles in New Zealand and no doubt prompted many people to wipe their hard drives as thoroughly as they can.


Author(s):  
Idil Atak ◽  
Zainab Abu Alrob ◽  
Claire Ellis

Abstract In 2019, Canada introduced legislative changes that made asylum seekers ineligible for protection if they have made a previous refugee claim in a country that Canada shares an information-sharing agreement with. Such agreements are currently in place with the US, Australia, the UK, and New Zealand. This article offers a critical assessment of the new ineligibility ground, arguing that the policy is designed to deter secondary refugee movements, particularly those across the Canada–US border which have considerably intensified since 2017. Based on the ‘first safe country’ rule, the new ineligibility ground enables Canada to exclude some asylum seekers from refugee protection without offering any alternative effective protection in Canada. This article demonstrates that the policy is inconsistent with Canada’s obligations under international refugee law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document