No result found
The Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research;
Based on individual longitudinal data, we examine the evolution of employment and earnings of post-EU accession Eastern European labour immigrants to Norway for a period of up to eight years after entry. We find that the migrants were particularly vulnerable to the negative labour demand shock generated by the financial crisis. During the winter months of 2008/09, the fraction of immigrant men claiming unemployment insurance benefits rose from below 2 to 14 per cent. Some of this increase turned out to be persistent, and unemployment remained considerably higher among immigrants than natives even three years after the crisis. Although we find that negative labour demand shocks raise the probability of return migration, the majority of the labour migrants directly affected by the downturn stayed in Norway and claimed unemployment insurance benefits.
Scandinavian Journal of trauma, resucitation & emergency medicine;
SJTREM has published an account by Sollid and colleagues of the pre-hospital medical response to the major incidents, which occurred in Oslo and Utøya island on July 22, 2011. Although very similar incidents have occurred in Europe and elsewhere, this terrible day saw the greatest loss of life recorded in this type of incident in recent times. Internationally EMS providers looked on with the certain knowledge that this type of incident is sadly one that we all have to prepare for. It is unrelated to national foreign policy, religious extremism or the existence of known terrorist activity. In short this type of incident is unpredictable and has the potential to happen in any community at any time.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions;
Examines how the trend toward seasonally open Arctic waters as a result of global climate change affects geopolitics. Analyzes 2008-12 policy statements and actions by Arctic states, other states with Arctic interests, and multilateral organizations.
Royal College of Nursing;
Medical treatments that were once provided in hospital are being increasingly administered in the community. Within health systems, there is a renewed focus on delivering general health care in the community, freeing hospitals to provide more complex, specialised and emergency care. As the drive to shift specialised and non-specialised care out of hospital gathers momentum, there is a greater demand for a skilled and competent community nursing workforce to facilitate this shift at a local level. Nurses are essential in the delivery of continuous care as they often serve as an interface between acute and community care, focusing on prevention, self- management and providing support to transition patients smoothly across the health and social care services.Moving care to the community has been a UK-wide health and social care policy priority for more than a decade. However, progress has been slow and in some cases fragmented. In order to address the issue, it is important to first review where this shift has been implemented and which lessons can be learned from international experiences. The RCN is committed to working closely with its equivalent nursing organisations overseas to learn from international best practices and incorporate some of this learning to shape health and social care policy in the UK, and more specifically promote good nursing practice. This report will focus on system-wide or sector specific reforms in Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Denmark as these countries have at one point or another addressed the need todeliver care outside of hospitals, either in patients' homes, GP clinics, community-basedcentres or care home settings.
Some policymakers in the United States and Europe argue that it is possible to enjoy economic growth and also have a large welfare state. These advocates for bigger government claim that the socalled Nordic Model offers the best of both worlds. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Economic performance in Nordic nations is lagging, and excessive government is the most likely explanation. The public sector in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland consumes, on average, more than 48 percent of economic output. Total government outlays in the United States, by contrast, are less than 37 percent of gross domestic product. Revenue comparisons are even more striking. Tax receipts average more than 45 percent of GDP in Nordic nations, a full 20 percentage points higher than the aggregate tax burden in the United States. This bigger burden of government hurts Nordic competitiveness, both because government spending consumes resources that could be more efficiently allocated by market forces and because the accompanying high tax rates discourage productive behavior. A smaller state sector is one reason why the United States is more prosperous. Per capita GDP in the United States is more than 15 percent higher than it is in the Nordic nations. The gap is even larger when comparing disposable income, private consumption, and other measures that reflect living standards. Notwithstanding problems associated with a large welfare state, there is much to applaud in Nordic nations. They have open markets, low levels of regulation, strong property rights, stable currencies, and many other policies associated with growth and prosperity. Indeed, Nordic nations generally rank among the world's most market-oriented nations. Nordic nations also have implemented some pro-market reforms. Every Nordic nation has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States, for example, and most of them have low-rate flat tax systems for capital income. Iceland even has a flat tax for labor income. And both Iceland and Sweden have partially privatized their social security retirement systems. The Nordic nations offer valuable lessons for policymakers, but they do not fit the traditional stereotype. Conservative critics correctly condemn the large welfare states, but often overlook the positive results generated by laissez-faire policies in other areas. Liberals, meanwhile, exaggerate the economic performance of Nordic nations in an effort to justify welfare-state policies, while failing to acknowledge the role of freemarket policies in other areas.
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate;
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate was set up to examine whether it is possible to achieve lasting economic growth while also tackling the risks of climate change.Its report seeks to inform economic decision-makers in both public and private sectors, many of whom recognise the serious risks caused by climate change, but also need to tackle more immediate concerns such as jobs, competitiveness and poverty. The report brings together evidence and analysis, learning from the practical experience of countries, cities and businesses across the world.
EFC Regional Foundations Network;
In order to share important learnings from projects that have the potential to be replicated by other foundations, the European Foundation Centre (EFC) and its network of Regional Foundations has conducted research on successful initiatives promoted by European foundations that have a geographically defined focus for their activities. The aim of the research is to start sharing practices that may inspire the design of similar initiatives in other regions. The initiatives selected for the study have proved to bring positive results in the context of their implementation and have the potential for being replicated in other contexts. A tool mapping the selected initiatives is also available online: http://regional.efc.be/
Compares the healthcare systems of Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States, including spending, use of health information technology, and coverage.
Compares the U.S. health system to those of twelve OECD countries based on measures of spending; physician supply and visits; utilization, supply, and prices of drugs and diagnostic imaging; and performance. Examines the causes of high U.S. spending.
European Foundation Centre (EFC);
This publication aims to provide the reader with a comparative overview of the diverse legal and fiscal environments of foundations in 40 countries across wider Europe: the 28 EU Member States, plus Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine. It includes charts, draw on the basis of the updated online EFC (European Foundation Centre) Legal and Fiscal Country Profiles, which are available to download at www.efc.be. The EFC online profiles include more detailed country information and further explanation of the information presented in those charts.
This publication presents overviews of the health care systems of Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Each overview covers health insurance, public and private financing, health system organization, quality of care, health disparities, efficiency and integration, use of health information technology, use of evidence-based practice, cost containment, and recent reforms and innovations. In addition, summary tables provide data on a number of key health system characteristics and performance indicators, including overall health care spending, hospital spending and utilization, health care access, patient safety, care coordination, chronic care management, disease prevention, capacity for quality improvement, and public views.
This publication presents overviews of the health care systems of Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Each overview covers healthinsurance, public and private financing, health system organization and governance, health care quality and coordination, disparities, efficiency and integration, use of information technology and evidence-based practice, cost containment, and recent reforms and innovations. In addition, summary tables provide data on a number of key health system characteristics and performance indicators, including overall health care spending, hospital spending and utilization, health care access, patient safety, care coordination, chronic care management, disease prevention, capacity for quality improvement, and public views.