Suchergebnisse

In his September 2002 report to the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary‐General Kofi Annan identified migration as a priority issue for the international community. Subsequent initiatives prompted by the UN resulted, in December 2003, in the formation of a Global Commission on International Migration. This independent body has three mandates: to bring international migration issues to the top of the global agenda, to analyze shortcomings in approaches to international migration and examine inter‐linkages with other issue‐areas, and to make practical recommendations for how to manage international migration more effectively. Remarks made by Kofi Annan at the launching of the Commission in Geneva were amplified in an address he gave to the European Parliament in Brussels on 29 January 2004 upon receiving the Andrei Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Simultaneously a brief article covering the themes in that address, signed by Kofi Annan, was released by the Secretary‐General's office for publication in leading newspapers throughout Europe. The full text of this article (http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/sg‐29jan2004.htm) is reproduced below.The article presents a number of propositions about international migration, with special reference to Europe, that tend to be taken for granted in discussions of the subject in international forums. Perhaps because of the article's brevity, the propositions are stated in strikingly unqualified form. Europe needs migrants. Immigration will enrich and strengthen European countries; the alternative is accepting declining living standards and social division‐‐a meaner, weaker, older Europe. In the absence of migration, jobs would go unfilled and services undelivered. Immigration cannot be controlled: closing the door would not only harm Europe's long‐term economic and social prospects, it would drive more and more people to come in through the back door. Such propositions, far from being axiomatic, are of course highly controversial. A fuller examination of them is presumably part of the Global Commission's remit.One of the biggest tests for the enlarged European Union, in the years and decades to come, will be how it manages the challenge of immigration. If European societies rise to this challenge, immigration will enrich and strengthen them. If they fail to do so, the result may be declining living standards and social division. There can be no doubt that European societies need immigrants. Europeans are living longer and having fewer children. Without immigration, the population of the soon‐to‐be twenty‐five Member States of the EU will drop, from about 450 million now to under 400 million in 2050. The EU is not alone in this. Japan, the Russian Federation and South Korea, among others, face similar possible futures‐where jobs would go unfilled and services undelivered, as economies shrink and societies stagnate. Immigration alone will not solve these problems, but it is an essential part of any solution.We can be sure that people from other continents will go on wanting to come and live in Europe. In today's unequal world, vast numbers of Asians and Africans lack the opportunities for self improvement that most Europeans take for granted. It is not surprising that many of them see Europe as a land of opportunity, in which they long to begin a new life‐just as the potential of the new world once attracted tens of millions of impoverished but enterprising Europeans. All countries have the right to decide whether to admit voluntary migrants (as op‐posed to bona fide refugees, who have a right to protection under international law). But Europeans would be unwise to close their doors. That would not only harm their long‐term economic and social prospects. It would also drive more and more people to try and come in through the back door‐by asking for political asylum (thus overloading a system designed to protect refugees who have fled in fear of persecution), or by seeking the help of smugglers, often risking death or in‐jury in clandestine acts of desperation on boats, trucks, trains and planes. Illegal immigration is a real problem, and States need to cooperate in their efforts to stop it‐especially in cracking down on smugglers and traffickers whose organized crime networks exploit the vulnerable and subvert the rule of law. But combating illegal immigration should be part of a much broader strategy. Countries should provide real channels for legal immigration, and seek to harness its benefits, while safeguarding the basic human rights of migrants. Poor countries can also benefit from migration. Migrants sent at least $88 billion to developing countries in remittances during 2002‐54% more than the $57 billion those countries received in development aid.Migration is therefore an issue in which all countries have a stake‐and which demands greater international cooperation. The recently established Global Commission on International Migration, co‐chaired by distinguished public figures from Sweden and South Africa, can help to establish international norms and better policies to manage migration in the interest of all. I am confident that it will come up with good ideas, and I hope they will win support, from countries that "send" migrants as well as those that receive them. Managing migration is not only a matter of opening doors and joining hands internationally. It also requires each country to do more to integrate new arrivals. Immigrants must adjust to their new societies and societies need to adjust too. Only with an imaginative strategy for integrating immigrants can countries ensure that they enrich the host society more than they unsettle it. While each country will approach this is‐sue according to its own character and culture, no one should lose sight of the tremendous contribution that millions of immigrants have already made to modern European societies. Many have become leaders in government, science, academia, sports and the arts. Others are less famous but play an equally vital role. Without them, many health systems would be short‐staffed, many parents would not have the home help they need to pursue careers, and many jobs that provide services and generate revenue would go unfilled. Immigrants are part of the solution, not part of the problem. All who are committed to Europe's future, and to human dignity, should therefore take a stand against the tendency to make immigrants the scapegoats for social problems. The vast majority of immigrants are industrious, courageous, and determined. They don't want a free ride. They want a fair opportunity for themselves and their families. They are not criminals or terrorists. They are law‐abiding. They don't want to live apart. They want to integrate, while retaining their identity. In this twenty‐first century, migrants need Europe. But Europe also needs migrants. A closed Europe would be a meaner, poorer, weaker, older Europe. An open Europe will be a fairer, richer, stronger, younger Europe‐provided Europe manages immigration well.

"In the field of anti-poverty policies, the interplay between the Europe 2020 overarching strategy and the "Semester" have marked major discontinuity vis à vis the Social OMC of the Lisbon phase. This book therefore asks whether and how Europe matters in the fight against poverty and social exclusion by assessing the emergence and possible institutionalization of a European multi-level, multi-stakeholder and integrated policy arena in the new institutional framework. Supranational developments, multilevel interactions, as well as effects at the national level are explored in six European countries - Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland, UK and Sweden. The book also aims to capture the key factors affecting the implementation of the Europe 2020 anti-poverty strategy.This book will be of key interest to students, scholars and practitioners in social policy, political science and European governance, and more broadly to European Union politics, European integrations studies, sociology and economics."--Provided by publisher.

This is a submission to the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) on the draft National Disability Strategy (NDS) outcomes framework, and is made on behalf of investigators from the Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health (CRE-DH). Monitoring implementation of and outcomes related to the National Disability Strategy (NDS) is essential for ensuring that the Strategy is effective in improving the lives of people with disability and achieving a fair and inclusive society in which people with disability can fulfil their potential as equal citizens. We welcome the opportunity to have input into the development of the NDS outcomes framework. Our comments set out in this submission are based on the materials provided to participants at the 'Researcher Roundtable - National Disability Strategy beyond 2020' on 3 December 2020. In providing our comments, we draw on our collective knowledge and research expertise in relation to health and wellbeing inequalities experienced by people with disability, and particularly on our recent experience with: - Developing the Disability and Wellbeing Monitoring Framework and Indicators, with input from people with lived experience of disability; and - Organising and contributing to, in partnership with the Australian Human Rights Commission, a Zoom webinar as part of consultations for the next National Disability Strategy. Australia has previously lacked a comprehensive approach for monitoring and reporting on social, economic and health outcomes for people with disability in comparison with non-disabled people. Research published by CRE-DH in 2017 revealed that, across many aspects of life, inequities between working-age Australians with and without disability persisted, and in some areas worsened, over the period 2001 to 2016. Monitoring, using reliable sources of data, is crucial to highlight inequalities that must be addressed and to identify levers for more effective policy action. The CRE-DH developed the Disability and Wellbeing Monitoring Framework, in consultation with people with lived experience of disability, to measure and track inequalities between people with and without disability in relation to exposure to social determinants of health and wellbeing. The Disability and Wellbeing Monitoring Framework has a hierarchical structure, with 19 domains grouped into three broad elements (Health and wellbeing, Social determinants, and Service system), within which 128 indicators are specified. It is possible to report nearly three-quarters of these indicators using existing Australian national data sources. For the remainder, national data are not currently available, highlighting important data gaps and the need for data development efforts. The CRE-DH is currently preparing to report national baseline data comparing people with and without disability, for all indicators where such comparison is applicable. In Section 1 , we provide specific comments on each NDS outcomes framework domain and list relevant indicators from the Disability and Wellbeing Monitoring Framework. Where appropriate, we suggest measures that may be considered for reporting as 'headline indicators'. In Section 2 , we provide input concerning the following key issues and overarching considerations relating to the outcomes framework and its use over the life of the NDS: - Co-design with people with disability, facilitated by inclusive processes, is essential in all aspects of the outcomes framework, including development, review and reporting. - Indicators must relate explicitly to Articles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD). The outcomes framework must provide a comprehensive basis for monitoring outcomes for people with disability compared with outcomes for people without disability in order to track inequalities. A commitment to regular public reporting is necessary for transparency and accountability. The outcomes framework has a crucial role to play in improving national data relevant to people with disability, and should be developed and used with this in mind. All measures must be fit-for purpose and should inform more effective policy and practice; therefore, the rationale for each measure must be clear. https://credh.org.au/reports-and-submissions/

В статье характеризуются условия, при которых образование становится фактором укрепления конкурентоспособности стран Европейского Союза в экономической, социальной и образовательной сферах. Раскрываются основные направления обновления образования, ориентированные на достижение этой стратегической цели. ; "Human civilization has accumulated huge experience in the development of education and upbringing. It is essential to thoughtfully examine and rationally use it with strict consideration of the specific conditions of our country and identity taking into account economical, socio-political and cultural problems. This determines the significance of comparative pedagogy as an important branch of contemporary scientific knowledge " Boris L. Vulfson, Zoya A. Malkova "comparative pedagogy" Annotation The conditions under which education becomes a factor of strengthening the competitiveness of European Union countries in economical, social and educational spheres are characterized in the article. The basic directions of renewing of education, oriented on achieving of this strategic goal are revealed.

Science Europe calls on the European Commission to take into account the important role of the research sector as producer and user of data. The longstanding experience of the research sector should feed into the development of an overarching EU data strategy that promotes data access across sectors. In its response to the EC consultation on the European Strategy for Data, Science Europe also underlines the need to consider sectoral policies to ensure coherence between overarching and sectoral policies.

The Lisbon strategy, launched in 2000 to promote growth and employment by developing a highly competitive European economy, is an incoherent mixture of economic liberalism, social democratic aspirations and neo-Schumpeterian technological determinism. This article presents the macroeconomic environment of the Lisbon strategy and calls into question the generally accepted notion that Europe lags behind the USA in terms of productivity and innovation. It discusses the implications of the most important integrated guidelines that member countries should follow to implement the Lisbon agenda and argues that they represent more a neoliberal programme than a renewal of the European social model. This article also presents the results of empirical work that tested the effectiveness of the various market liberalisation measures promoted by the Lisbon agenda. These results show that one should not expect significant results in two key areas: innovation and employment.