Cuestiones laborales en una zona norteamericana de libre comercio

En este artículo se analizan las investigaciones sobre asuntos laborales en una zona norteamericana de libre comercio que incluiría Estados Unidos, México y Canadá. El tema principal es la posible evolución del empleo, los salarios y las instituciones laborales, en especial en Estados Unidos y México. Las cuestiones laborales abarcan mucho más que las simples relaciones comerciales, que constituyen la principal inquietud dentro de las negociaciones trilaterales del TLC y también dentro de la Ronda Uruguay de negociaciones comerciales multilaterales a escala mundial dentro del GATT. El efecto del TLC en el empleo debe analizarse dentro del contexto de la compleja relación entre el comercio, los flujos de inversión, los cambios tecnológicos y los movimientos migratorios, así como las prácticas laborales y las instituciones sociales y políticas dentro de los tres países y entre sí. A fin de cuentas, dadas las diferencias considerables en los niveles de ingresos de la región, la cuestión más importante se refiere a la potencial convergencia o divergencia de los salarios y de la productividad en los tres países y entre los grupos socioeconómicos dentro de ellos. ¿Conducirá la creación del TLC a un patrón de convergencia basado en la elevación de la productividad y de los salarios en México? ¿O será su principal resultado el deterioro de la distribución del ingreso en Estados Unidos? ¿Qué recursos e instituciones adicionales se requieren para facilitar el crecimiento de México y hacer más suave su transición hacia un nuevo tipo de integración mutuamente benéfica?

Diversos escenarios de la integración de los Estados Unidos y México: enfoque de equilibrio general computable

Actualmente tienen lugar pláticas oficiales entre los Estados Unidos y México acerca de la formación de una zona de libre comercio (ZLC) entre ambos países. La propuesta de una ZLC ha producido mucha especulación, así como algunos modelos económicos relativos al posible efecto en las economías de la América del Norte. El efecto de una ZLC Estados Unidos-México debe evaluarse en el contexto de la rica estructura de integración que se ha desarrollado históricamente entre los dos países. Durante más de un siglo México y los Estados Unidos han sido los dos países más interdependientes en los lados opuestos de la división entre Norte y Sur, incluyendo fuertes vínculos comerciales, de inversión y de migración. Si bien las economías de los dos países son claramente asimétricas (el producto interno bruto o PIB de México es aproximadamente 4% del estadunidense), el comportamiento económico en México produce efectos importantes en los Estados Unidos. Durante el auge petrolero y de la deuda de la década de los setenta, por ejemplo, tanto el volumen del comercio entre los Estados Unidos y México como el superávit comercial de aquel país con el nuestro aumentaron de manera considerable. Después de la crisis de la deuda de 1982, el derrumbe de las exportaciones estadunidenses a la América Latina y la necesidad que tenían los principales países de la región de generar superávit comerciales para pagar el servicio de su cuantiosa deuda, fueron factores importantes en el aumento del déficit comercial estadunidense a mediados de la década de los ochenta. México y los Estados Unidos se enfrentan también a una interdependencia cada vez mayor en el mercado del trabajo. Las tendencias demográficas indican una fuerza de trabajo estadunidense que envejece y se reduce, en tanto existe una fuerza de trabajo mexicana que crece rápidamente durante el fin del siglo. Estas tendencias producirán complementariedades potenciales en el mercado del trabajo así como graves problemas de ajuste durante los próximos veinte años.

Beyond Trump and the immigration stalemate: how big media corporations limit latino news access and support anti- immigrant politicians who misinform their constituents

The massive Latino outrage against Donald Trump´s anti-immigrant rhetoric and the subsequent severing of business relations by large media corporations, first by Univision and then followed by NBC/Comcast, represents a historic milestone in the national manifestation of the surging potential of Latino economic and political power. The loud break-up between Trump and some large media corporations with newfound righteous indignation is only the visible tip of a much more involved and long-standing relationship between media/tech corporate business strategies, the financial support of anti-immigrant politicians and the misconceptions of immigrants which these politicians deliberately propagate with their base. An analysis of this ongoing corporate support for the electoral campaigns of sitting anti-immigrant politicians, as well as other corporate media and tech business strategies that limit Latino owned media expansion and general access to affirmatively accurate information on immigrants, goes a long way to explain the dynamics of misinformation, political posturing and electoral power calculus that feeds the stalemate in immigration reform. This analysis also identifies rich opportunities for Latino and pro-immigrant mobilization strategies for unraveling this toxic stalemate blocking immigration reform which would be strongly positive for the U.S. economy and social structures

Remittance flows to post-conflict states: perspectives on human security and development

This repository item contains a single issue of the Pardee Center Task Force Reports, a publication series that began publishing in 2009 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future.Migrant remittances – that is, money or other goods sent to relatives in the country of origin– play an increasingly central role in post-conflict reconstruction and national development of conflict-affected states. Private remittances are of central importance for restoring stability and enhancing human security in post-conflict countries. Yet the dynamics of conflict-induced remittance flows and the possibilities of leveraging remittances for post-conflict development have been sparsely researched to date. This Pardee Center Task Force Report is the outcome of an interdisciplinary research project organized by the Boston University Center for Finance, Law & Policy, in collaboration with The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. The Task Force was convened by Boston University development economist John R. Harris and international banking expert Donald F. Terry, and social anthropologist Daivi Rodima-Taylor, Visiting Researcher at the Boston University African Studies Center, served as lead researcher and editor for the report. The Task Force was asked to research, analyze, and propose policy recommendations regarding the role of remittances in post-conflict environments and their potential to serve as a major source of development funds. The report’s authors collectively suggest a broader approach to remittance institutions that provides flexibility to adapt to specific local practices and to make broader institutional connections in an era of growing population displacement and expanding human and capital flows. Conditions for more productive use of migrants’ remittances are analyzed while drawing upon case studies from post-conflict countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The papers in this Task Force Report establish the importance of remittances for sustaining local livelihoods as well as rehabilitating institutional infrastructures and improving financial inclusion in post-conflict environments. Highlighting the increasing complexity of global remittance systems, the report examines the growing informality of conflict-induced remittance flows and explores solutions for more efficient linkages between financial institutions of different scales and degrees of formality. It discusses challenges to regulating international remittance transfers in the context of growing concerns about transparency, and documents the increasing role of diaspora networks and migrant associations in post-conflict co-development initiatives. The Task Force Report authors outline the main challenges to leveraging remittances for post-conflict development and make recommendations for further research and policy applications

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

The Costs and Benefits of Immigration Enforcement

The U.S. government would raise the social floor for the entire economy if it created a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants in the country. Working paper presented at the Baker Institute Latin America Initiative conference "Immigration Reform: A System for the 21st Century."For more than two decades, the U.S. government has attempted to put a stop to unauthorized immigration from (and through) Mexico by implementing “enforcement-only” measures along the U.S.-Mexico border and at work sites throughout the country. These measures have not only failed to end unauthorized immigration, but have placed downward pressure on wages in a broad swath of industries. In recent decades, the U.S. government’s avoidance of immigration reform and dependence upon enforcement-only approaches to immigration has served only to deepen a vicious cycle of underground labor markets, lower wages, lower consumption, lower tax revenue, and reduced productivity. Were the government to end this failed enforcement-only crusade and create a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants in the United States, as well as new legal limits on immigration that respond to market forces, it would raise the social floor for the entire U.S. economy—to the benefit of both immigrants and native-born workers