Browse by: "F"
Index
Title Index
Year Index
While the responsibility for nuclear security at the national level rests entirely with each state, international co-operation can be crucial in helping states to fulfil their nuclear security responsibilities and obligations. The central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in strengthening the nuclear security framework and leading the co-ordination of international activities in the field of nuclear security is now widely recognised.1 Although much has been done to help states in improving nuclear security, by and under the auspices of the IAEA and other intergovernmental organisations, nuclear terrorism has gained a global recognition as one of the most challenging threats to global security in the 21st century.
There is ample literature and other material available to describe the detrimental effects and far-reaching consequences of major nuclear incidents.1 Their potential magnitude became evident in particular through the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident2 and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) accident.3 It is obvious that after a major nuclear accident, hundreds of thousands of people may suffer damage and thus may emerge to claim compensation for such damage.
This paper assesses the extent to which the fall in risk premia of a number of financial assets, which occurred throughout 2003, was due to improvements in factors specific to individual markets at that time or to general economic fundamentals coupled with OECD-wide abundant liquidity. Regarding the latter two factors, principal component analysis was used here to identify a common trend in risk premia in equity, corporate bond and emerging markets since early 1998. The analysis finds that both economic fundamentals and liquidity have played a statistically significant role in driving the common factor. It also finds that liquidity (measured as the GDP weighted average of M3 of the three major economies less its trend) performs better than similarly weighted short-term interest rates. By spring 2004, the common factor in different risk premia had fallen below what could be explained by economic fundamentals and liquidity ...
The steel industry in OECD countries has undergone profound change during the past several decades. Capacity has been reduced significantly, while substantial investment has been made to improve processing efficiency and product quality. Two key technological developments have driven this process. The first is rapid expansion of the use of continuous casting, a technology that has improved product quality, reduced energy consumption and greatly increased efficiency. The second is significant growth in electric furnace steelmaking, particularly at highly efficient small-scale mini-mills, that produce an expanding range of steel products using ferrous scrap as the principal raw material. These and other technological changes, combined with plant closures and other restructuring, have greatly reduced industry employment. Despite growth in finished steel production, employment has fallen by close to 40 per cent in the OECD area since 1980.
This document examines how the employment ...
Long-term bond yields have been low in recent years both in nominal and real terms, and – especially in the United States – they have reacted differently to shifts in monetary and fiscal stances relative to previous cycles. This article examines various possible explanations for this behaviour, such as the effects of changes in monetary policy frameworks on inflation and interest rate expectations; developments in ex ante saving-investment balances, and shifts in investors’ portfolio preferences (including official reserve accumulation, “petro-dollar” recycling and pension fund demand for longer maturities). The article concludes that it is unlikely that any individual explanation can account for the level and profile of bond yields in recent years, but that an important element has been a compression in term premia, together with shifts in expected short rates. Even though bond yields have started to rise in the early part of 2006, they are unlikely to go back to the levels that prevailed in the 1980s or the early 1990s, as several of the factors that drove them lower are set to persist.
The OECD Competition Committee debated the “failing firm” exception, or defence, in merger review in May 1995. This document includes an analytical note by the OECD and written submissions from Australia, Canada, the European Commission, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Norway, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the United States and an aide-memoire of the discussion.
Social inequality with regard to education seems to be mainly the result of two factors: the reduced success of certain socio-economical categories within the education system and distinct educational requirements once the compulsory education period is over. In this article, we shall focus on the inequality stemming from the choices and personal decisions of individuals by highlighting the influence of social origins as a factor capable of inducing an under-investment in education. Thus, we shall examine how an auto-selection process contributes to the iniquity of the education system. This analysis is based on the theoretical framework of human capital investment developed by Gary Becker (1964) and principally underlines the effects of expectations, uncertainty and cost perception in the differences in evaluations of the profitability of education according to social background. It brings to light reflections on the educational policy.
The OECD Secretariat has prepared this note on “Fair Trade” as a contribution to discussion of trade-related issues of current interest that fall outside the Trade Committee’s normal work programme. The goals of this paper are twofold. First, the paper is meant as a foundation for better understanding the Fair Trade movement — who its actors are, how it works, and how widespread it is — all of which have a bearing on the extent to which policy makers should pay attention to it. Second, it seeks to identify trade and other policy issues and raise some questions for discussion.
The obligation to provide “fair and equitable treatment” is often stated, together with other standards, as part of the protection due to foreign direct investment by host countries. It is an “absolute”, “non-contingent” standard of treatment, i.e. a standard that states the treatment to be accorded in terms whose exact meaning has to be determined, by reference to specific circumstances of application, as opposed to the “relative” standards embodied in “national treatment” and “most favoured nation” principles which define the required treatment by reference to the treatment accorded to other investment1. Although some references to the standard can be found in the first negotiating attempts of multilateral trade and investment instruments, it became established as a principle mainly through the increasing network of bilateral investment treaties.
The obligation of the parties to investment agreements to provide to each other’s investments “fair and equitable treatment” ...