Pet Platypus For Sale Toronto

The influx of immigrants or the false threat of jazzmen

The immigration issue is a sensitive and difficult to put into perspective. The first challenge is political: how to explain to the median voter that immigration is facilitated in its own interest? Against a background of crisis in the labor market and vulnerability employment, such speech is fast becoming difficult to implement. Because the immigration problem is primarily social. If there is agreement on the individual welfare of migrant satisfaction is native to debate. From general point of view, one can quickly examine the remainder provided by an immigration policy. Often mentioned situations of brain drain or cases where an immigrant double dividend transfer intellectual ability or financial gain abroad. Such a global perspective is necessary to carry out coordinated policies between countries. The success of such thinking is essential. Necessary for sustainability policies which must be structural. Required to agree to policies of development assistance.

A recurring question, however, must be addressed: is it an offer of overtime (an immigrant), a facility that would result from immigration penalizes labor supply already place (native)? The answer depends on two conditions: the number of immigrants and the additional production factor endowments of both parties.

The first principle is that the supply of labor is paid its marginal productivity in a competitive market economy. Assuming that the natives have endowments of capital and labor and that immigrants have only endowments work can be studied in two situations. This study is accompanied by a second assumption: the average productivities remain constant and that whatever the amount of additional immigrants. The first case is that of a low influx of immigrants. In this situation, the natives keep their salaries while immigrants are paid on their productivity. However, and this is the second case, if the influx of immigrants becomes important then the differences in factor endowments of production will penalize immigrants who receive a lower wage (abundance of labor input) and will tend to increase the wages of natives who have received capital injections, which are becoming scarce because of the relative abundance of productive factors.

A first partial conclusion is that a sharp increase in immigration increases welfare (measured by the richness) of native but decreases that of immigrants, conditional on different factor endowments. A second conclusion, surprisingly, is that immigration creates an unequal distribution of wealth but not in the sense commonly assumed in public debate.

The challenge in our little story is that immigration increases the income of capital, an additional factor endowments to immigration, and decreases to a lesser extent the labor income factor substitute for immigration. Thus a static perspective, the well-being increases.

can extend the analysis using a dynamic analysis. The increase in return on capital is attracting new foreign capital that encourages investment and thus increase the demand for labor. Thus the relative abundance of labor increases capital income, which in turn stimulates an increase in labor input. We can then show that the influx of immigrants creates an imbalance in the event of partial perfect mobility of productive factors.

We know that the marginal productivity of labor is equal to the capital-labor ratio and returns to scale are constant. For example if we have a ratio of 4 / 8, an influx of immigrants increases the return on capital to 6 and reduces the labor to 6, then passes a ratio of 0.5 to 1. The influx of capital reduces the return on capital at 4, we return to the initial equilibrium with a ratio equal to 0.5. In the case of imperfect mobility of productive factors, this imbalance can not be corrected and become permanent. This is why immigration requires consideration of a multitude of factors, particularly an adaptation of economic policies based on context often differs from one country to another.

These few case studies show that indeed the influx of immigrants could lead to economic imbalances but not necessarily on the natives as many think. These tests are still sketchy and can quickly become more complex. In addition, some mechanisms can compensate the losers of such policies on immigration; what will be discussed in a future post.

In all cases, and only include a friend, it is not always legitimate to be suspicious of jazz musicians in Harlem.

Retrieve Medical Records In Ontario Cost?

The shift of the Turkey's foreign policy

A major geopolitical change has occurred in recent years at the gates of Europe without sufficient attention has been paid there. She has taken the turn for Turkish diplomacy since 2002 and the victory of the AKP and the accession the power of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Since the end of the Second World War, Turkey stood very clearly a strategic perspective, in the "western camp". The establishment of the Republic by Ataturk in 1923 had inaugurated a foreign policy for a complete change with that of the late Ottoman Empire, which was primarily a Middle Eastern power, to significantly towards the Western powers. With the consequent making some diplomatic distance with its Arab neighbors, resulting in two major events: the recognition of the State of Israel since its creation in 1948 and the accession to NATO in 1952. Since 1980, Turkey is a candidate for accession to the European Union, clearly showing its orientation to the West.

But the shift in foreign policy was very clear in the eyes of public opinion during the recent diplomatic crisis following the Israeli commandos attack against a humanitarian fleet en route to Gaza, largely composed of Turks, on 30 May. The condemnation of Ankara was particularly lively street with Turkish expressing virulence in protests an anti-Israeli views.
What is crucial to see is that these incidents put a halt to a process of reconciliation begun in the early 1990s between the two countries , cemented by their common alliance with the United States . Tel Aviv and Ankara have developed a partnership including active military, naval exercises on common information exchanges terrorism or the opening of Turkish airspace to aircraft of the IDF. Especially, the two states came together on the geostrategic against an "adversary" in common: Syria, Israel and Turkey with concern for common the Arab question.

If it is widely seen as the last few weeks, the shift in Turkish foreign policy is rooted in the victory of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) parliamentary elections 2002. Conservative Party, whose house is powerful Islamist movement, the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdogan hoisted as Prime Minister and the new government reoriented the Turkish diplomacy. for the International Crisis Group , Turkey is now looking a " balance in its regionally based alliances and greater . In other words, while maintaining strong relationships with Western powers such as the United States and remaining candidate to the EU, Erdogan now think of Turkey as a regional power, that is to say as a power of new Middle Eastern .

This implies a rapprochement with the Arab : Turkish diplomacy is more active in international affairs in the Arab world, she had previously failed to benefit from its Western orientation. Relations with Syria and Iraq were normalized in the course of the 2000s, thanks to the exit the isolation of President al-Assad and the American presence that toppled Saddam Hussein. Turkish diplomats are very active in 2008 in solving the international crisis between Israel and Syria.

This also implies a distancing from Israel : Erdogan and the AKP have expressed a hitherto unprecedented hostility from the Turkish government against the State of Israel. Turkey has been at the forefront of denouncing the war in Gaza. And most importantly, we will use the media stunt Erdogan Forum Davos in January 2008, he left after a violent altercation with Israeli President Shimon Peres .

Some are skeptical about the "tightrope " of Turkey, Muslim power but non-Arab Middle East, like Iran. But by asserting itself as a major non-Arab Middle East, Turkey has built an intermediary that one should be neglected.

Thus, the greater involvement of Turkey in the geopolitics Middle East has found a striking illustration a few weeks ago, during the tripartite negotiations between Brazil, Iran and Turkey. The May 16, 2010, the three countries signed an agreement on the exchange of nuclear fuel. This agreement, although it is true that it does not change fundamentally challenges the Iranian nuclear issue, has been too quickly denigrated by Westerners. It shows that Iran has bypassed its traditional counterparts, around the "outstretched hand" of Barack Obama to turn to an emerging country and another non-Arab Muslim country. It shows that these are three non-Council members of the UN Security who manage the most crucial issue of the moment. It mostly shows that Turkey raises its ambitions to become a regional power.

Today, therefore two non-Arab (Ottoman Turkey and Iran Persian) which act as regional powers in the Middle East at the expense of Egypt and others. In this new situation, it is not clear that European and American diplomats have taken all the lessons.

Buffalo Hide Moccasins

Review of the foreign policy of the European Union: the need for consistency

What progress has the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union since its establishment in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty? Especially, how to draw perspectives for Europe to act fully as an international actor? What critics make?

To get a more precise idea on these issues, reading the analysis and proposals Joachim Bitterlich, former diplomatic adviser to Chancellor Helmut Kohl can be very instructive.

Bitterlich said that if the Maastricht Treaty institutionalized the CFSP as the second of three "pillars" that constituted the structure of the European Union until 2009, it is the Council European Cologne in 1999 which paved the way for better development - ie the political will of member governments that institutions themselves. Indeed, the mode of operation of the CFSP has remained in sixteen years strictly intergovernmental and non-Community (therefore not subject to supranational institutions).

To overcome this relative institutional unfulfilled, the Treaty of Nice in 2001 launched as a key component of the new ESDP Security Policy and Defence Policy (ESDP) as the legal framework of EU interventions abroad . If

is objectionable in many ways, ESDP has allowed the EU to develop some experience, interventions abroad : the EUFOR mission in Chad, U.S. PT Kosovo, EUFOR RD EUPOL Kinshasa and the ARTEMIS Congo, EUJUST THEMIS to Georgia, have been completed. The EU is still active on its own continent (Georgia, Moldova, Bosnia) as in Africa (Somalia, Guinea Bissau, Congo) or the Middle East (Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq) through the ESDP.

But Europe now can not be satisfied with this experience but must go further . Progress has been significant recent years, but the Lisbon Treaty, which would definitely have given the EU diplomatic capacity and increased fixed, is very disappointing as incomplete.

Indeed, the Lisbon text created functions EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy , whose first priority is the establishment of a European External Action called "diplomatic service of the Union". The Heads of State and Government of the EU have made the choice for this position ... unexpected Britain's Catherine Ashton, a former trade commissioner assuming fully its inexperience in diplomatic affairs.

It should therefore implement this unified European diplomatic service without either authority or influence or legitimacy member states. Secondly, such a service - which is a tool for implementing a policy - of course requires some harmonization of foreign policies, at least one substantive political agreement on the objectives and means of strategy International Union. However, those are the big EU states such as France in the lead, Germany and Great Britain, with their geopolitical so different, that remain in the maneuver.

" When looking more closely at the practice of European politics in the face of major partners or major international problems, it is rather evidence of a mixture of fundamental disagreements and agreements weak and superficial, even a preference for bilateral relations rather than the common approaches "writes Joachim Bitterlich.

Finally, Europe has made little progress on the diplomatic front since the Iraq crisis in 2003 when she was torn between supporters and opponents of the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. She has paid dearly recently, with a heavy responsibility for the failure of the Copenhagen Summit: EU, presented as a leader on climate issues, has been marginalized in the negotiations, lack of consistency and efficiency. It is therefore the United States and China have the most broadly defined the essence of the final package, with minima of course.

year 2010, which represented a test for new diplomatic structures of the EU has thus opened a tremendous missed . Europe has still not harmonized the positions of its member states towards Russia as strategic partners (France, for example by being traditionally closer than all other European countries), China (relations France / Germany and China / China are radically different) or even the United States, and even less on hot spots such as the Middle East.

The former diplomatic advisor to Helmut Kohl estimated that " if Europeans fail to act together, united not only on the lowest common denominator, they will not be sufficiently credible . But the best way to produce this consensus, so that European foreign policy remains the deepening and strengthening the institutions of their legitimacy.

Political practice Lisbon Treaty and the appointment of Catherine Ashton as High Representative show that Europe has not yet taken the path.