Browse by: "F"

While the responsibility for nuclear security at the national level rests entirely with each state, international co-operation can be crucial in helping states to fulfil their nuclear security responsibilities and obligations. The central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in strengthening the nuclear security framework and leading the co-ordination of international activities in the field of nuclear security is now widely recognised.1 Although much has been done to help states in improving nuclear security, by and under the auspices of the IAEA and other intergovernmental organisations, nuclear terrorism has gained a global recognition as one of the most challenging threats to global security in the 21st century.

There is ample literature and other material available to describe the detrimental effects and far-reaching consequences of major nuclear incidents.1 Their potential magnitude became evident in particular through the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident2 and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) accident.3 It is obvious that after a major nuclear accident, hundreds of thousands of people may suffer damage and thus may emerge to claim compensation for such damage.

Long-term bond yields have been low in recent years both in nominal and real terms, and – especially in the United States – they have reacted differently to shifts in monetary and fiscal stances relative to previous cycles. This article examines various possible explanations for this behaviour, such as the effects of changes in monetary policy frameworks on inflation and interest rate expectations; developments in ex ante saving-investment balances, and shifts in investors’ portfolio preferences (including official reserve accumulation, “petro-dollar” recycling and pension fund demand for longer maturities). The article concludes that it is unlikely that any individual explanation can account for the level and profile of bond yields in recent years, but that an important element has been a compression in term premia, together with shifts in expected short rates. Even though bond yields have started to rise in the early part of 2006, they are unlikely to go back to the levels that prevailed in the 1980s or the early 1990s, as several of the factors that drove them lower are set to persist.

Social inequality with regard to education seems to be mainly the result of two factors: the reduced success of certain socio-economical categories within the education system and distinct educational requirements once the compulsory education period is over. In this article, we shall focus on the inequality stemming from the choices and personal decisions of individuals by highlighting the influence of social origins as a factor capable of inducing an under-investment in education. Thus, we shall examine how an auto-selection process contributes to the iniquity of the education system. This analysis is based on the theoretical framework of human capital investment developed by Gary Becker (1964) and principally underlines the effects of expectations, uncertainty and cost perception in the differences in evaluations of the profitability of education according to social background. It brings to light reflections on the educational policy.

The OECD Secretariat has prepared this note on “Fair Trade” as a contribution to discussion of trade-related issues of current interest that fall outside the Trade Committee’s normal work programme. The goals of this paper are twofold. First, the paper is meant as a foundation for better understanding the Fair Trade movement — who its actors are, how it works, and how widespread it is — all of which have a bearing on the extent to which policy makers should pay attention to it. Second, it seeks to identify trade and other policy issues and raise some questions for discussion.