Browse by: "M"

• Tariffs still matter. • Full tariff liberalisation to 2010 would generate dynamic welfare gains of $1 200 billion (at 1995 prices), equivalent to 3 per cent of World GDP in 2010, from greater efficiency and higher productivity. • Developing countries stand to gain relatively more from multilateral tariff liberalisation, with aggregate gains amounting to nearly 5 per cent of their GDP in 2010. • The next WTO round will provide an opportunity for members to improve their living standards. Realising this potential, however, poses a major policy challenge to developing countries.

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the “Guidelines”) are one of many intergovernmental instruments that seek to promote economic, social and environmental progress. The OECD Guidelines do this by establishing concepts and principles for responsible business conduct that help “to ensure that the operation of [multinational enterprises] is in harmony with government policies, to strengthen the basis of mutual confidence between enterprises and the societies in which they operate, to help improve the foreign investment climate and to enhance the contribution to sustainable development...

The OECD Workshop on Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Private Investment, organised in co-operation with the Finnish Ministry for the Environment, took place in Helsinki on 16-17 June 2005. It provided an opportunity to bring relevant stakeholders together to exchange views and discuss recent experiences regarding private investment that contributes to the solution of global environmental problems.

This report has two parts: the key messages emerging from the workshop (Part I) and a summary of the presentations and discussions (Part II). It builds upon presentations by, and discussions among, workshop participants who represented national governments, MEA Secretariats and implementing agencies, businesses, international governmental and non-governmental organisations, research institutes and other stakeholder groups.

For background information, please see "Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Private Investment: Business Contribution to Addressing Global Environmental Problems", published as Document No. 387 in OECD Papers, Vol. 5, Issue 2.

Environmental and investment policies have the potential to reinforce their respective goals while promoting the broader objective of sustainable development. Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) aim at changing the collective behaviour of governments, private investors, and other stakeholders in order to achieve certain environmental goals. They are also an important part of the international context in which investment takes place. Therefore, MEAs promoting investment objectives and investment activity in support of MEA implementation play an important role in making investment and environment policies compatible.

The successful implementation of MEAs cannot be achieved by public efforts alone, but also relies on private sector contribution. Therefore, MEAs need to be designed in a way that promotes private sector involvement. Environmentally-friendly investments represent an opportunity for environmental policies and the private sector: while contributing to the goals of MEAs they may lead to enhanced economic returns. The report aims at deepening the understanding of this potential. It examines the main areas of inter-linkage between MEAs and private investment activity focusing on the three Rio Conventions and the Montreal Protocol.

Further reading: "Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Private Investment: Workshop Proceedings and Key Messages" published as Document No. 406 in OECD Papers, Vol. 5, Issue 9.

Ample research has shown the importance of collaboration between practitioners, researchers, and policy makers to ensure holistic, inclusive, and effective policy making, particularly in the field of refugee education. Many countries, however, still face challenges in engaging with stakeholders during all the stages of the practice – research – policy transfer in the context of refugee education in a meaningful and effective way. The unique and distinct needs of refugee students in education systems require extensive collaboration among schools, service providers, and (refugee) communities to collect evidence whether and how refugee students’ needs are met. Hence, a multi-stakeholder approach or “whole-of-a-society” approach is one of the prerequisites for designing inclusive refugee education policies. This paper highlights the importance of stakeholder engagement at all stages of the practice – research – policy transfer, and maps key stakeholders in refugee education in Europe.

Comprehensive and coordinated action across levels of government responsible for different policy domains (labour, education, housing and welfare/health) as well as across local actors is crucial to migrant integration. To respond to this need for co-ordination, different policy instruments are mobilised by countries. This paper presents six of them, to illustrate three categories of practices supporting migrant integration through better multi-level co-ordination:

Reinforcing co-ordination (financial, human, technical) between levels of governments and private actors such as businesses or non-governmental organisations to foster migrant integration and retention: The Canadian Atlantic Immigration Pilot (AIP) and the French Territorial Contracts for the Reception and Integration of Refugees (CTAIR);

Resolving information and evaluation asymmetries: Vienna (Austria) Integration and Diversity Monitor and the German Network IQ;

Illustrating the positive externalities of territorial development and investment programmes on migrant integration and social cohesion: The Italian Inner Areas Strategy and the French Urban Policy.

Subnational governments in Asia and the Pacific are key providers of the public services and infrastructure required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Given this role, it is essential that policymakers and development partners understand and support the effective functioning of multi-level governance structures and subnational government finances across the region.

This joint OECD-ADB report provides a comprehensive overview of subnational governments across Asia and the Pacific. It covers over 467,000 subnational governments from 26 countries, which represent 53% of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP. On average in 2020, subnational governments in the region accounted for 29% of total public expenditure (8.8% of GDP), 35% of total public revenue (8.5% of GDP) and 38% of public investment (2% of GDP).

Harnessing unique data from the 3rd edition of the OECD-UCLG World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment, the analysis highlights how decentralisation and territorial reforms have reconfigured the structures and finances of subnational governments in the region. It covers a range of topics including fiscal rules, financial management capacity, priority-based budgeting, asset management and the use of public-private partnerships.

Over 2008-11, most OECD countries switched from highly expansive fiscal policies to the tightest in decades. During the crisis and subsequent recession in 2008-09, many OECD and G20 countries implemented stimulus packages, which in some cases amounted to 4% or more of GDP. On the expenditure side, the fiscal programmes typically focused on public investment. Given their large traditional role in public investment in OECD countries, sub-national governments (SNGs) have played an important role in implementing investment recovery strategies. For future investment strategies it is important to learn about obstacles encountered across levels of government and the instruments that facilitated implementation. The crisis has made more obvious the multi-level governance challenges – in particular fiscal, policy, capacity or administrative challenges – that are inherent to decentralised political systems. Co-ordination across levels of government has proven critical for targeting investment priorities, ensuring coherence in fiscal policy and facilitating the implementation of national strategies during the crisis. As stimulus packages are phased out, many countries are planning some combination of spending cuts and tax increases in 2011-12. To avoid simply shifting the problem from the centre to the regions, co-ordinated efforts from all levels of government are required to accommodate appropriate budget cuts for fiscal consolidation and better prioritise investment in what unlocks each region?s potential to restore growth. Both the stimulus and the process of fiscal consolidation highlight the need to foster and improve policy co-ordination, transparency and information sharing across levels of government.