Benefits of high-purity biopharma processing thermoplastic tubing in single-use systems

Please click Additional Files below to see the full abstrac

Wealth Dynamics in the 1980’s and 1990’s: Sweden and the U.S.

Given differences in public saving programs between Sweden and the United States, an examination of household private wealth accumulation in these two countries can be enlightening. In this paper we examine wealth inequality and mobility in Sweden and the United States over the past decade. We show that wealth inequality has been significantly greater in the U.S. than in Sweden and, while remaining relatively constant since the mid-1980’s in Sweden, has increased in the United States. In addition to less inequality and a higher median wealth, we also show that wealth quintile mobility in the 1990’s has been 25.7% higher in Sweden, as measured by Shorrocks’ index. Noting the role of various demographic components in shaping the patterns of wealth mobility as well as the importance of the initial wealth distribution, we utilize a matching algorithm that controls for these differences. Matching on the initial wealth distribution alone accounts for most of the mobility difference between the two countries and yields a Shorrocks’ index in the U.S. 11.1% less than that in Sweden. Adjusting for the large degree of imputation in the Swedish data, the U.S. index is only 3.4% to 6.1% less than that of Sweden. Along with exploring the role of racial composition differences, we conclude tha demographic variation between Sweden and the U.S. play very little role in explaining wealth mobility beyond that explained by the initial wealth distribution. Despite the higher quintile mobility in Sweden, dollar mobility is still high in the United States.Mobility; Wealth; Panel data; Statistical matching; Comparison U.S. - Sweden

Child and Family Welfare in Sweden

Sweden has no special Children’s Act because regulations on children are included in the Social Services Act from 1980, supplemented by an act regulating compulsory care. Child and Family welfare has a family support orientation rather than a child protection orientation. No time limit provided by the law put an end to family support or out-of-home care, but interventions are reviewed every six months. The paper presents some facts about Sweden, gives and overview of the legal framework, family maintenance services and out-of-home care. Further details are given about contact person/family as one of the most frequently used statutory support services for children and families. As an example of the decentralised social services in Sweden, the organisation of child and family welfare in the district of Rosengaard in the city of Malmoe is described. The paper ends with reflections and debated issues in child and family welfare in Sweden

Labour courts in Great Britain and Sweden: a self-service model v collective regulation

The institutions for adjudicating employment rights in Great Britain and Sweden are superficially similar – in both countries there are labour courts with lay judges and both countries are covered by European Union employment legislation. Beneath this surface, however, there are important differences. In Sweden there is collective regulation as the social partners (that is trade unions and employers organisations) continue to play a significant part in the labour court process. In contrast the social partners no longer play a role in the adjudication of employment rights in Great Britain, which provides an individualistic, self-service model. This article traces these changes in Great Britain, and the lack of them in Sweden, before offering theoretical explanations for the differences