Search

Over the past several decades, the six member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have implemented economic policies for industrial diversification to lessen severe dependence on the oil industry. Such policy efforts have been driven by their awareness of macro-economic and structural risks from heavy volatilities in international oil markets in terms of fiscal and trade sectors. For instance, the drop in international oil prices reduces export performance in the oil and natural gas sectors, which in turn results in a decline in the stability of fiscal revenue. The recent trends of low oil prices since 2014, as well as high unemployment rates, have strengthened the policy regime for industrial diversification and job creation supported by mid- to long-term economic plans of the GCC countries. This report reviews what has been emphasized in the areas of industrial, employment, trade and investment policies. We then derive implications for Korean companies and policymakers for sustainable cooperation between Korea and the Middle East.

In the last decades, many countries have chosen to implement Immigrant Investor Programs (IIPs) to attract foreign capital and boost national economies. IIPs are based on a conditional exchange logic according to which the host country offers residence permits (Residence by Investment — RBI—), citizenship (Citizenship by Investment —CBI—) and, sometimes, preferential tax regimes, to third-country nationals making substantial investments within its territory. The influence of this kind of economic strategies on in —and out— migration of individuals and capitals leads the polarization of both immigrants and states. IIPs, in fact, tend to reveal the existence of a lucky class of immigrants, able to invest in order to skip the standard procedures for obtaining residence permits and/or citizenship, and to show that the provision of preferential treatments is apt to turn states into “top destinations”. Such a polarization does not arise from the willingness to damage a group of immigrants or from attempts to undermine the economy of other countries; by implementing IIPs, host countries pursue economic benefits without minding on any detrimental consequence. IIPs can generate discrimination between high and low-income people —immigrants and citizens—, unfair economic competition among countries, and also mismatches in the field of taxation. All these negative impacts have been widely addressed in the past1 , but they still exist and to fight them, it is important to keep the information related to RBIs and the CBIs always updated. This paper provides a database of these programs and their main characteristics2 with the aim to facilitate the work of all those researchers and organizations that commit themselves to the study of the factors that give rise to economic discrimination and unfair competition.

National attention is focused on racial and economic discrimination in the criminal justice system. Racially disproportionate interaction with the system leaves people of color with significantly more court-related debt. While criminal court debt has been described and condemned in the adult system, this issue has received virtually no attention in the juvenile system, where fees undermine rehabilitative goals. This report presents research findings about the practice of assessing and collecting fees on families with youth in the juvenile system in Alameda County, California. The County charges these fees to thousands of families who are already struggling to maintain economic and social stability, and the financial burden appears to fall most heavily on families of color. Although the fees are supposed to help the county recoup expenses, its own data suggest that the County barely recovers the most direct costs of collection.The report calls for an immediate moratorium and repeal on the assessment and collection of these regressive and racially discriminatory fees (NB: On March 29, 2019, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors imposed a fees moratorium and asked the relevant county departments to prepare for a full repeal by June 28, 2016).

This Article examines the ubiquitous, multibillion dollar practice of tipping as a vehicle for race and gender discrimination by both customers and servers and as a case study of the role that organizations play in producing and promoting unequal treatment. The unique structure of tipped service encounters provides plenty of opportunities and incentives for the two parties to discriminate against one another. Neither customers nor servers are likely to find legal redress for the kinds of discrimination that are most likely to occur in tipped service transactions, however, because many of the same features of the transaction that promote discrimination also stand in the way of legal accountability for the discrimination that results. Moreover, while tipped service transactions directly involve just the customer and server, they take place within an organizational framework that is created by a third party in their relationship, the firm that sells to the customer and employs the server. That framework often facilitates discriminatory bias in the decisions of customers and servers and encourages the firm to make decisions that reinforce the discriminatory dynamics of the service encounter. Yet, the “triangular” structure of the relationship among firm, customer, and server both obscures the firm’s role in producing discriminatory outcomes and protects the firm against liability to either of the other parties. Close examination of discrimination in tipped service encounters reveals the importance of an understanding of discrimination that lessens the focus on individual decision making and supports recent calls for a newer, structural approach to antidiscrimination law.

The debate over market/individual regulation and freedom is not a new discussion. However, a clear understanding of the freedoms (or the lack of freedoms) and their economic consequences on early black Americans provides an informative understanding to the freedoms (or the lack of freedoms), and their economic consequences on other, modern ethnic groups. Leon Litwick (1961) and Ira Berlin (1974) provide the most comprehensive historical accounts of free blacks in the north and south, respectively. This study attempts to build upon their successes by presenting one of the first national studies that combines the legal, demographic and economic experiences of free blacks, with an extended analysis of antebellum wealth inequality. In doing so, I investigate the link between the social asymmetry and economic asymmetry among early blacks and whites in the United States of America. For the empirical study, I used cross-sectional variables from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Sample (IPUMS), I developed informative conditional ratios, and I employ least squares statistical analyses. This study finds that economic differences among ethnic groups, as measured by differences between early blacks and whites, are intertwined with asymmetrical freedoms.

The central objective of our paper is to empirically examine the relationship between the ownership structure of firms and their export performance. To do so, we use data from the Republic of Korea, a classic example of successful export-oriented industrialization. While a large and growing empirical literature investigates the relationship between the ownership structure and overall performance of firms, there are almost no studies that delve into the issue of whether the concentration of ownership has a positive or negative effect on export performance. The primary contribution of our study is to help remedy this serious gap in the empirical literature on ownership and performance. Our empirical results indicate that Korean firms with more concentrated ownership are more likely to be exporters, and to export more.

Gender equality is, first and foremost, a human right. A woman is entitled to live in dignity and in freedom from want and from fear. Empowering women is also an indispensable tool for advancing development and reducing poverty. Empowered women contribute to the health and productivity of whole families and communities and to improved prospects for the next generation. The importance of gender equality is underscored by its inclusion as one of the eight Millennium Development Goals. Gender equality is acknowledged as being a key to achieving the other seven goals. Yet discrimination against women and girls - including gender-based violence, economic discrimination, reproductive health inequities, and harmful traditional practices - remains the most pervasive and persistent form of inequality. Women and girls bear enormous hardship during and after humanitarian emergencies, especially armed conflicts. There have been several organisations and institutions advocating for women, promoting legal and policy reforms and gender-sensitive data collection, and supporting projects that improve women's health and expand their choices in life. Despite many international agreements affirming their human rights, women are still much more likely than men to be poor and illiterate. They usually have less access than men to medical care, property ownership, credit, training and employment. They are far less likely than men to be politically active and far more likely to be victims of domestic violence. The ability of women to control their own fertility is absolutely fundamental to women’s empowerment and equality. When a woman can plan her family, she can plan the rest of her life. When she is healthy, she can be more productive. And when her reproductive rights — including the right to decide the number, timing and spacing of her children, and to make decisions regarding reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence — are promoted and protected, she has freedom to participate more fully and equally in society. Gender equality implies a society in which women and men enjoy the same opportunities, outcomes, rights and obligations in all spheres of life. Equality between men and women exists when both sexes are able to share equally in the distribution of power and influence; have equal opportunities for financial independence through work or through setting up businesses; enjoy equal access to education and the opportunity to develop personal ambitions. A critical aspect of promoting gender equality is the empowerment of women, with a focus on identifying and redressing power imbalances and giving women more autonomy to manage their own lives. Women's empowerment is vital to sustainable development and the realization of human rights for all. Where women’s status is low, family size tends to be large, which makes it more difficult for families to thrive. Population and development and reproductive health programmes are more effective when they address the educational opportunities, status and empowerment of women. When women are empowered, whole families benefit, and these benefits often have ripple effects to future generations. The roles that men and women play in society are not biologically determined - they are socially determined, changing and changeable. Although they may be justified as being required by culture or religion, these roles vary widely by locality and change over time. Key issues and linkages: 1)Reproductive health: Women, for both physiological and social reasons, are more vulnerable than men to reproductive health problems. Reproductive health problems, including maternal mortality and morbidity, represent a major - but preventable - cause of death and disability for women in developing countries. Failure to provide information, services and conditions to help women protect their reproduction health therefore constitutes gender-based discrimination and a violation of women’s rights to health and life. 2) Stewardship of natural resources: Women in developing nations are usually in charge of securing water, food and fuel and of overseeing family health and diet. Therefore, they tend to put into immediate practice whatever they learn about nutrition and preserving the environment and natural resources. Economic empowerment: More women than men live in poverty. Economic disparities persist partly because much of the unpaid work within families and communities falls on the shoulders of women and because they face discrimination in the economic sphere. Educational empowerment: About two thirds of the illiterate adults in the world are female. Higher levels of women's education are strongly associated with both lower infant mortality and lower fertility, as well as with higher levels of education and economic opportunity for their children. Political empowerment: Social and legal institutions still do not guarantee women equality in basic legal and human rights, in access to or control of land or other resources, in employment and earning, and social and political participation. Laws against domestic violence are often not enforced on behalf of women. Experience has shown that addressing gender equality and women’s empowerment requires strategic interventions at all levels of programming and policy-making. Women’s Work and Economic Empowerment: In nearly every country, women work longer hours than men, but are usually paid less and are more likely to live in poverty. In subsistence economies, women spend much of the day performing tasks to maintain the household, such as carrying water and collecting fuel wood. In many countries women are also responsible for agricultural production and selling. Often they take on paid work or entrepreneurial enterprises as well. Unpaid domestic work – from food preparation to care giving – directly affects the health and overall well being and quality of life of children and other household members. The need for women’s unpaid labour often increases with economic shocks, such as those associated with the AIDS pandemic or economic restructuring. Yet women's voices and lived experiences – whether as workers (paid and unpaid), citizens, or consumers – are still largely missing from debates on finance and development. Poor women do more unpaid work, work longer hours and may accept degrading working conditions during times of crisis, just to ensure that their families survive. Intergenerational gender gaps: The differences in the work patterns of men and women, and the 'invisibility' of work that is not included in national accounts, lead to lower entitlements to women than to men. Women’s lower access to resources and the lack of attention to gender in macroeconomic policy adds to the inequity, which, in turn, perpetuates gender gaps. For example, when girls reach adolescence they are typically expected to spend more time in household activities, while boys spend more time on farming or wage work. By the time girls and boys become adults; females generally work longer hours than males, have less experience in the labour force, earn less income and have less leisure, recreation or rest time. This has implications for investments in the next generation. If parents view daughters as less likely to take paid work or earn market wages, they may be less inclined to invest in their education, women's fastest route out of poverty. Empowering Women through Education: "Education is one of the most important means of empowering women with the knowledge, skills and self-confidence necessary to participate fully in the development process." (—ICPD Programme of Action, paragraph 4.2)

This study analyzed racial inequality by decomposing historical black-white differences in wealth using regression decomposition. This technique decomposes economic differences into the portion explained by differences in characteristics and the unexplained portion due to different returns to a set of characteristics (See, e.g., Blinder 1973 and Oaxaca 1973). Preliminary results confirm that the size and source of contemporary black-white wealth differences have historical roots: In 1870, at least 75 percent of white-black wealth differences were not explained by characteristic differences described by the classical model. This is consistent with wealth decompositions of late-twentieth century data that show three-quarters of white-black differences were unexplained (See, e.g., Blau and Graham 1990). Furthermore, this study found that 77.8 percent of white-black wealth differences were not explained in states that abolished slavery well before the Civil War while 87.9 percent of white-black wealth differences were unexplained in states that abolished slavery after the Civil War.

One approach to analyzing inequality is to compare average economic choices from a classical theoretical framework. Another approach considers the impact of the formation of society, through statutes and institutions, on average economic outcomes. This dissertation studies the effects of slavery on black-white wealth inequality upon the emancipation of slaves in the US using historical, crosssectional data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples (IPUMS). Foremost, a theory of relative wealth is presented, where wealth is determined by group-specific wages, hours of work, consumption, and interest rates. Historical black-white differences in wealth were estimated using regression decomposition. This technique decomposes economic differences into the portion explained by differences in characteristics and the unexplained portion due to different returns to a set of characteristics (See, e.g., Blinder 1973 and Oaxaca 1973). Results confirm that we cannot reject that the claim that, when comparing the wealth of ex-slaves to the wealth whites, differences in wealth due to unexplained (or discrimination) effects dominate the portion due to classical characteristic differences. Furthermore, the size and source of contemporary black-white wealth differences have historical roots: In 1870, at least 75 percent of white-black wealth differences were not explained by characteristic differences described by the classical model when employing the primary index. This is consistent with wealth decompositions of late twentieth century data that shows that three-quarters of white-black differences in wealth were unexplained (See, e.g., Blau and Graham 1990). Finally, since unexplained differences in states that abolished slavery after the CivilWar were 10 percent higher than unexplained effects in states that abolished slavery well before the CivilWar and the magnitudes of the unexplained effects were similar over the long-run, we cannot reject the existence of a negatively bounded correlation between the duration of time from enslavement and the magnitude of unexplained differences in wealth.