Obviously the damage was enormous especially for Japan. Firstly, it is an island. Secondly, it is considered one of the world’s leading technological countries. A significant number of dead, missing, homeless and evacuated people, the risk of the nuclear plant explosion, collapsed buildings, the closure of plants and many other damages have had their own effects not only on Japan, but also on the world. These effects are more visible in the economy. The reason is simple: today’s world is becoming more and more familiar with Globalization, the process by which regional economies have become integrated to a global economy. The aim of this essay is to discuss the major economic effects of the earthquake and tsunami to Japan and to the world’s economy.
Effects on Japan economy
Considering that this essay discusses the major effects of earthquake and tsunami on world’s economy, it would be unreasonable and illogical not analyzing the effects on Japan’s economy. Unfortunately the earthquake hit the home of auto manufacturing and semiconductor factories, destroying not only the factories but also the raw materials leading to a suspension of the working process in many autos manufactures such as Toyota, Mitsubishi and Nissan. A large responsibility for the reconstruction cost will be on the shoulders of local authorities and government, which lately has been struggling to recover its public debt figures. Ironically the earthquake and tsunami could increase debt load figure up to 10% of GDP (Brandimarte. W, 2011).
Besides the public debt concern, Japan has to face its currency (Yen) problem. It is often claimed that a strong currency is an indicator of a good economy. Actually the truth is that a strong currency has a bad impact in exports and it damages the ability of the exporter to compete in world market. Owing to the natural disaster, Yen started rising again because there was more possibility that company would send their funds back home. In order to control Japanese Yen, Bank of Japan is using the Quantitative Easing policy (QE), by which the bank creates new money (Pym. H, 2011). Likely this new money will not only calm the destabilizing market and the banking system but it will also stimulate the economy. However, a coin has two sides and controlling the Japanese Yen is just one side of the coin (QE policy). The other side of the coin is a threatening inflation, caused by an increase in money supply and a decrease in its value.
A growing Economy
Apart from the devastating damage, stressing the world’s third largest economy, it is believed that the earthquake and tsunami could have a positive impact in Japan’s struggling economy. The economic problems concerning Japan before the tsunami, which were mentioned in some previous points in this essay, such as a high budget deficit, a large public debt, the increasing contraction of economic activities just in Tokyo area, its trouble banking system. However, Marcus Noland, an Asia expert for The Peterson Institute for International Economics, sees the natural disaster as a kind of stimulus for Japan economy (Mcclatchydc.com 2011). Definitely, the awake of Japan concerning the economy is connected with the long-run as it is impossible to boost an economy in the short-run, especially after being hit by a mammoth wall of water.
Taking into account Japanese high savings rate together with the amount of cash it owns, the private sector of the economy should not face any problem. Moreover Private insurance will cover much of damage to personal and commercial property, said Dan Ryan, a U.S.-based global analyst and Japan expert for IHS Global Insight (Mcclatchydc.com 2011). Another point in favour of is that the economy will not be focused just in Tokyo, but it will start developing even in north. It is more than known that the events in Japan are heartbreaking. Nonetheless, like all natural disasters the negative short term economic impact should hopefully be less than feared and will give way later this year to rebuilding which will help boost growth.
Certainly trading is one of the major effects of earthquake and tsunami in world’s economy. Considering the disruptions in Japanese manufacturing activities, the impact on international supply chains could also be considerable. This is particularly important in industries such as autos, telecommunications, and consumer electronics. However, the effects are unequally spread and it is pointed out that they may also be limited. Whilst a declining in Japan supply to U.S would lead to a production stoppage for many autos, non Japan Asia including Australia and Indonesia will benefit from the nuclear problem in Japan by exporting the energy. Hence their economies will see a boost. Furthermore Europe will not be affected (perhaps only minor effects) as countries such as Germany are in itself industrial countries, which exports their product worldwide. As Nariman Behravesh, Chief Economist of IHS, reports: the direct trade impact is not that large, as Japan provides less than 3% of German imports and Japan buys just over 1% of total German exports (Behravesh. N, 2011). However, Europe economy is not doing well due to a fragile economic climate because of the recession of 2008.
Nevertheless, not everyone may agree with the statement that the effects are limited. In addition, disruptions in Japan are increasing prices and causing shortages of significant raw materials and parts, in particular for autos, electronic and shipbuilding. Therefore there is a slow rate production in Japan’s fast-growing neighbours, which are also in `agony` because of a short-run fall off in demand from a major export partner, Japan.
Why Women Get Paid Less Than Men Economics Essay
Introduction One of the most debated issues in relation to globalization is whether it leads to more inequality. While there is wide consensus that there are aggregate welfare gains to be reaped by international integration, there is less agreement on the distributional consequences. Possible adverse effects on inequality are often perceived as one of the main costs of further international integration, which must be weighted against other gains accruing in the process. In the debate some have focused on the possibility that increased inequality would backlash the integration process, while others have pointed to the fact that it necessitates policy reforms coping with possible adverse distributional consequences. A central question is therefore how international integration affects wage formation, employment and inequality (Torben and Allan, 2005).
Much of the inequality cum globalization debate has in particular centered on how integration of low wage countries in the international economic sphere affects the relative wages of unskilled to skilled workers. A significant deterioration in the relative wage of unskilled relative to skilled workers has been observed over the last couple of decades for the US and also other countries like the UK. Integration of countries with an abundant supply of unskilled workers (relative to skilled) would simply a deteriorating position of unskilled workers and an improved situation for skilled workers in the incumbent countries. Extensive research on this issue has been performed, and the consensus view is that trade has played a much smaller role for these changes than technological changes biased to the favor of skilled workers.1This paper takes a different perspective on the distributional consequences of international integration to cope with a number of stylized facts, which are not well represented in the Heckscher-Ohlin model underlying the Stopler-Samuels on proposition. Specifically, we take outset in the following stylized facts concerning international integration. First, while there has been an increase in the level of trade between high wage and low wage countries it is relatively modest compared to the increase in trade between the developed countries, i.e. “North-North” integration has played at least as large a role as “South-North” integration in recent years. As a case in point, trade has grown substantially relative to GDP in recent years for all EU-15 countries, but the consolidated trade share for EU-15 countries is not significantly larger today than it was about 40 years ago (Hanaa, 2005).
Secondly, not only has the importance of trade grown substantially in quantitative terms, but the qualitative changes may be potentially more important. Trade is changing from inter-industrial towards intra-industrial trade, i.e. trade within industries in final or intermediary products rather than trade between industries. This suggests that differences in aggregate factor endowments do not play a dominant role for the integration process experienced in e.g. European countries. Rather we observe growth in trade between relatively similar countries, which is driven by product differentiation, specialization, economies of scale, innovations etc. It has been documented that European countries tend to specialize production and recent empirical work also attributes a central role to specialization and comparative advantages as driving forces for the growth in trade (Torben and Allan, 2005).
Thirdly, the labor market consequences do not primarily derive from increased mobility of labor. Although labor mobility is part of e.g. the European integration process, there have so far been no significant changes in mobility patterns .Potential labor market consequences therefore have to arise via the interaction between labor and product markets. Product markets are significantly affected by integration, and these changes may have important labor market implications since product market conditions are important both for employment creation and the rents to be bargained over in wage negotiations. To capture this situation it is necessary to account for imperfect competition in both product and labor markets to address how product market integration affects employment creation and wage formation and therefore in turn wage dispersion. This also matches the perception that European labor markets are best characterized as markets with various forms of imperfections, including imperfect competition. International integration may have distributional consequences since it creates both opportunities and threats, and it is unlikely that these are equally shared across all groups in the labor market. Indication that product market integration may have labor market consequences including effects on inequality is found in recent empirical work. In particular it has been documented that exporting firms tend to have higher productivity and pay higher wages than comparable non-exporting firms, and the causality runs from productivity to exports, i.e. productive firms become exporters. Export is also associated with an exit of less productive firms and reallocation of resources to more efficient firms .Studies focusing on the import side of trade have found that lower trade barriers tend to decrease wage premia and that import penetration has a negative effect on wages. This evidence suggests that wage formation is affected by opposite forces running via an export opportunity tending to improve wages and an import threat tending to lower wages. It is not plausible that the export opportunity and the import threat are uniformly distributed across different sectors/groups, especially since the evidence points to productivity as a crucial determinant for export possibilities.
There are currently two main accounts of labor markets: the mainstream labor market (MLM) account, which avoids serious analysis of social structures; and a rather unsystematic SOCIOECONOMIC account, which recognizes that labor markets are embedded in social structures, but remains ambiguous vis-à-vis the nature of this embedding. Augmenting the latter with a critical-realist approach serves to reduce that ambiguity, and allows us to break completely with the idea that there are phenomena called ‘labor markets’ that are embedded in other phenomena called ‘social structures’ and to move, instead, towards the realization that “labor markets just are, or are exhausted by, the very social structures that constitute them” (Steve, 2006).
Why women get paid less than men Thirty years after the Equal Pay Act, women are still getting paid less than men – resulting in a financial deficit that could add up to as much as £250,000 over a lifetime. On average, for every £1.00 a man earns, a woman gets only 82p across both the public and private sectors. The government has appointed Denise Kingsmill, the deputy chairman of the Competition Commission, to lead an inquiry into equal pay and suggest practical solutions to the pay gap. Her initial findings show there are few environments where women feel they cannot compete equally, but when it comes to pay the odds are still weighed against them. In the banking and insurance sector, for example, male pay averages approximately £18 per hour, whereas women receive just under £10.50 (Roy, 2007).
Tribunals too slow Critics say this is just unacceptable and want the law to have more muscle. They point to the length of time it takes for cases to be settled, often up to two years. 30 years since the Equal Pay Act, women are still getting paid less than men. With the help of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Sarah Daly successfully took her former employer to a tribunal, after she realized she was being paid £4,000 less than a male colleague doing the same job. But it took 18 months for her case to settle out of court (Roy, 2007).
The government has so far not wanted to make pay audits statutory, but one trade union in particular is seeking to strengthen implementation of the Equal Pay Act through the use of audits. The Transport