Reino Unido

Page 72 of 84
1 … 70 71 72 73 74 … 84

Joint programming in European science and technology policy

Paul Hünermund y Georg Licht

voxeu.org/08 de julio de 2016/Por: Paul Hünermund, Georg Licht

Resumen: Los países europeos están coordinando cada vez más sus políticas nacionales de investigación y desarrollo. Sin embargo, los programas supranacionales I + D conllevan problemas desde un punto de vista de la gobernabilidad. En esta columna se discute el problema de las subvenciones cruzadas entre los países participantes. iniciativas de programación conjunta europeos generalmente están diseñados para evitar la transferencia de pagos internacionales. La evidencia empírica sugiere que ello viene a costa de una menor eficiencia. Sin embargo, el 87% del gasto público en investigación y desarrollo (I + D) en 2014 todavía se mantuvo en el level.1 nacional Este paisaje fragmentado de la I interno y los sistemas de apoyo D complica la orientación internacional de ciencia y conduce a una duplicación de los esfuerzos de investigación dentro de la UE. El aumento del número de iniciativas de programación conjunta, por tanto, es una prioridad política clave para la Comisión Europea (OCDE 2012). La puesta en común de las contribuciones nacionales a un programa europeo con un presupuesto común (el llamado «real bote común ‘) plantea problemas desde el punto de vista de gobierno. En particular, las tasas de éxito podrían ser geográficamente desequilibrada si subvenciones concedidas a determinados países no corresponden a la cuota de contribución del país. Este debate sobre las transferencias netas entre los participantes se conoce como justa compensación en los círculos políticos. Además, las autoridades podrían estar tentados a reducir la financiación nacional y libre de paseo en las contribuciones de los países socios. Con el tiempo, crear y distribuir un presupuesto único a nivel supranacional podría requerir cambios en las condiciones marco legales para los países participantes de la OCDE (2012). Para evitar estos problemas, el 80% de las iniciativas de programación conjunta europeos están organizadas como ‘ollas comunes virtuales «(VCP) (Moretti y Villanova 2012). Un VCP emula un verdadero fondo común (RCP) en la medida en la calidad de los proyectos que soliciten subvenciones se evalúa de forma centralizada por una sola autoridad pública, que es responsable de todos los países participantes. Cada país se compromete a respetar el ranking de evaluación de la agencia central, pero sólo paga los fondos a sus propios candidatos nacionales. En consecuencia, la preocupación por el parasitismo y justo retorno se mitigan y hay menos necesidad de armonizar los marcos legales. Sin embargo, un VCP hace que el proceso de asignación de las subvenciones de I + D más complicado. Las propuestas de proyectos son generalmente presentadas por consorcios internacionales como las iniciativas de programación conjunta destinadas a promover la cooperación entre países de I + D. Por lo tanto, las limitaciones presupuestarias tienen que ser holgura en todos los países involucrados. Para ilustrar el funcionamiento de un VCP, supongamos que hay cuatro países que participan en un programa conjunto – A, B, C y D. Cada país aporta un presupuesto para financiar exactamente dos subvenciones. En consecuencia, hay un presupuesto total de exactamente ocho becas. Además, supongamos que hay propuestas de proyectos por seis consorcios internacionales y cada socio del proyecto requiere de una subvención para llevar a cabo el proyecto. Todas las propuestas de proyectos se evalúan según un ranking de calidad central, que puede ser como sigue:

Tabla 1 . El funcionamiento de un fondo común virtual de

Un consorcio formado por dos socios del país B y uno del país A ha presentado su propuesta mejor evaluada. Otro consorcio de países B y C presenta el segundo mejor proyecto, y así sucesivamente. En un fondo común, se concederían las tres aplicaciones de más alto rango, después de lo cual se agotaría el presupuesto común de ocho. En una olla común virtual, por el contrario, las limitaciones presupuestarias nacionales individuales deben ser respetados. La primera propuesta recibe fondos como antes. Entonces, sin embargo, el país B utiliza su presupuesto de dos y el segundo clasificado proyecto renuncia a la financiación. Para la tercera propuesta, los solicitantes de diferentes países, allí de nuevo están disponibles los recursos suficientes. También el quinto clasificado propuesta reúne los requisitos para la financiación en un VCP en este ejemplo.

La Tabla 1 ilustra tres cosas. En primer lugar, en un fondo común, ningún socio de un país D recibe una subvención. En su lugar, todo el presupuesto D’s se paga a los socios del fondo de otros países. El fondo común virtual se supone que previene precisamente esta situación. En segundo lugar, el PCV deja huecos de proyectos no financiados que de otro modo se otorgan en un PCR.En tercer lugar, y lo más importante, el rango promedio de calidad de los proyectos financiados es inferior en un VCP. Por lo tanto, si el impacto de las subvenciones se incrementa con la calidad del proyecto, se financian proyectos menos eficientes. Esto lleva a un compromiso entre el equilibrio geográfico de un VCP está diseñado para inducir y una asignación eficiente del presupuesto del programa.

En un artículo reciente, Hünermund y Czarnitzki (2016) estimar el efecto de Eurostars, un programa conjunto de 33 países (incluidos los cinco países no pertenecientes a la UE) destinados a I + D rendimiento de las pequeñas y medianas empresas, en el crecimiento firme y la creación de empleo. El programa contó con un presupuesto total de 472 millones € entre 2008 y 2013, de los cuales el 25% fue co-financiado por la Comisión Europea (Makarow et al. 2014). Una ventaja práctica del hecho de que no todos los proyectos de alto rango quedan formalizadas en VCP es que facilita la identificación de los efectos causales. Mientras que los mejores proyectos siempre son financiados en un PCR, un VCP permite a los investigadores comparar las empresas financiadas con sus vecinos directos en el ranking de evaluación. Para ponerlo en términos econométricos, la variación exógena en la disponibilidad presupuestaria, generada por el PCV, sirve como un instrumento para la recepción de subvenciones de las empresas. Hünermund y Czarnitzki utilizan este y muestran que el impacto de las subvenciones de I + D en la creación de empleo es de hecho una función creciente de la calidad del proyecto (véase la Figura 1). Puesto que un VCP financia proyectos con una calidad media más baja es la relación estimada se traduce en un trabajo subvención inducida que es un 27% más costoso en comparación con un PCR.

Figura 1 . El crecimiento del empleo inducida por las subvenciones de I + D en el programa Eurostars dependiendo de la calidad del proyecto

Aunque un VCP tiene ventajas desde la perspectiva del gobierno, la evidencia empírica muestra que reduce la eficiencia de las políticas conjuntas de I + D. Los números exactos serán diferentes para otros programas, en función de la relación entre la calidad del proyecto y el impacto de políticas. Sin embargo, siempre habrá una pérdida de eficiencia siempre y cuando la relación no es completamente plana. Por consiguiente, un mejor equilibrio entre el equilibrio geográfico y la eficiencia podría ser una combinación de un PCR y un VCP. En un modo mixto de este tipo una parte del presupuesto total se utiliza para financiar los proyectos mejor clasificados, con independencia de su origen geográfico. La parte restante todavía puede ser asignado como VCP para lograr una tasa de concesión uniformemente distribuida. Hünermund y Czarnitzki simular un modo mixto para el programa Eurostars y ha constatado que la contribución de la Comisión Europea del 25% había sido asignado como un verdadero fondo común, una gran parte de los costes adicionales debido a la VCP se habría evitado.

Noticia Original:

European countries are increasingly coordinating their national research and development policies. However, supra-national R&D programmes entail problems from a governance standpoint. This column discusses the problem of cross-subsidisation between participating countries. European joint programming initiatives are usually designed to avoid international transfer payments. Empirical evidence suggests that doing so comes at the price of decreased efficiency.

Recent years have seen major efforts to coordinate science and technology policies across Europe. Nevertheless, 87% of public spending on research and development (R&D) in 2014 still remained at the national level.1 This fragmented landscape of domestic R&D support schemes complicates internationally oriented science and leads to a duplication of research efforts within the EU. Increasing the number of joint programming initiatives is therefore a key policy priority for the European Commission (OECD 2012).

The pooling of national contributions to a European programme with a common budget (a so-called ‘real common pot’) poses problems from a governance standpoint. In particular, success rates might be geographically unbalanced if grants paid out to certain countries do not correspond to the country’s contributing share. This debate about net transfers between participants is known as ‘juste retour’ in policy circles. In addition, policymakers might be enticed to lower national funding and to free-ride on partner country’s contributions. Eventually, creating and distributing a single budget at the supra-national level might require changes in the legal framework conditions for participating countries (OECD 2012).

The virtual common pot

To avoid these problems, 80% of European joint programming initiatives are organised as ‘virtual common pots’ (VCPs) (Moretti and Villanova 2012). A VCP emulates a real common pot (RCP) insofar as the quality of projects applying for grants is evaluated centrally by a single public authority, which is responsible for all participating countries. Each country is committed to respect the evaluation ranking of the central agency, but only pays funds to their own national applicants. Consequently, concerns about free-riding and juste retour are mitigated and there is less need to harmonise legal frameworks. However, a VCP makes the allocation process of R&D grants more complicated. Project proposals are usually submitted by international consortia as joint programming initiatives aimed at promoting cross-national R&D cooperation. Thus, budget constraints need to be slack in all countries involved.

To illustrate the working of a VCP, suppose there are four countries participating in a joint programme – A, B, C, and D. Each country contributes a budget to fund exactly two grants. Consequently, there is a total budget of exactly eight grants. Further, suppose that there are project proposals by six international consortia and each project partner requires one grant to conduct the project. All project proposals get evaluated according to a central quality ranking, which may look as follows:

Table 1. The working of a virtual common pot

A consortium formed by two partners from country B and one from country A submitted the best evaluated proposal. Another consortium from countries B and C presented the second-best project, and so forth. In a real common pot, the three highest-ranked applications would be granted, after which the common budget of eight would be exhausted. In a virtual common pot, by contrast, the individual national budget constraints need to be respected. The first proposal receives funding as before. Then, however, country B used up its budget of two and the second-ranked project forgoes funding. For the third proposal, by applicants from different countries, there are again sufficient resources available. Also the fifth-ranked proposal qualifies for funding in a VCP in this example.

Table 1 illustrates three things. First, in a real common pot, no partner from country D receives a grant. Instead, D’s entire budget is paid out to fund partners from other countries. The virtual common pot is supposed to prevent exactly this situation. Second, the VCP leaves gaps of non-funded projects that otherwise would be granted in an RCP. Third, and most importantly, the average quality rank of funded projects is lower in a VCP. Thus, if the impact of grants increases with project quality, less efficient projects are funded. This leads to a trade-off between the geographical balance a VCP is designed to induce and an efficient allocation of the programme’s budget.

The Eurostars Joint Programme

In a recent paper, Hünermund and Czarnitzki (2016) estimate the effect of Eurostars, a joint programme of 33 countries (including five non-EU countries) targeted at R&D-performing small and medium-sized enterprises, on firm growth and job creation. The programme had a total budget of €472 million between 2008 and 2013, of which 25% was co-funded by the European Commission (Makarow et al. 2014).

A practical advantage of the fact that not all high-ranked projects get granted in a VCP is that it facilitates the identification of causal effects. Whereas the best projects always get funded in an RCP, a VCP allows researchers to compare funded firms with their direct neighbours in the evaluation ranking. To put it in econometric terms, the exogenous variation in budget availability, generated by the VCP, serves as an instrument for firms’ subsidy receipt. Hünermund and Czarnitzki use this and show that the impact of R&D grants on job creation is indeed an increasing function of project quality (see Figure 1). Since a VCP funds projects with a lower average quality the estimated relationship translates into one grant-induced job that is 27% more costly compared to an RCP.

Figure 1. Job growth induced by R&D grants in the Eurostars programme depending on project quality

Although a VCP has advantages from a governance perspective, empirical evidence shows that it reduces the efficiency of joint R&D policies. Exact numbers will differ for other programmes, depending on the link between project quality and policy impact. However, there will always be an efficiency loss as long as the relationship is not completely flat. A better trade-off between geographical balance and efficiency might therefore be a combination of an RCP and a VCP. In such a mixed mode a share of the total budget is used to fund the best-ranked projects, irrespective of their geographical origin. The remaining share can still be allocated as a VCP to achieve an evenly distributed granting rate. Hünermund and Czarnitzki simulate a mixed mode for the Eurostars programme and find that if the European Commission’s contribution of 25% had been allocated as a real common pot, a large fraction of the additional costs due to the VCP would have been avoided.

References

European Commission (2008), “Towards joint programming in research: Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively”, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 11935/08, COM (2008) 468

Hünermund, P, and D Czarnitzki (2016), “Estimating the Local Average Treatment Effect of R&D Subsidies in a Pan-European Program”, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 16-039

Makarow, M, G Licht, I Caetano, D Czarnitzki, and S Elçi (2014), “Final Evaluation of the Eurostars Joint Programme”, Ref. Ares (2014) 3906990

Moretti, P F, and L M Villanova (2012), “Coordinating European national research programmes: the process towards Joint Programming Initiatives”, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, DTA 10-2012

OECD (2012), “Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance: International Co-operation in Science, Technology and Innovation”, OECD Publishing

Tomado de: http://voxeu.org/article/joint-programming-european-science-and-technology-policy

Imagen: https://www.google.com/search?q=Joint+programming+in+European+science+and+technology+policy&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb28nP_-PNAhXDez4KHdbUAJMQ_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&q=european+continent&imgrc=YNC7jRaz20gXpM%3A

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Inglaterra: The new Sats: How are they different?

Noticias

Europa/Inglaterra/Julio de 2016/Fuente: BBC News

RESUMEN: Los resultados de una nueva serie de pruebas nacionales obligatorias para los niños en el último año de la escuela primaria en Inglaterra se publican. Pero, ¿cómo se diferencian de las viejas pruebas?
The results of a new set of compulsory national tests for children in the final year of primary school in England are being published. But how are they different from the old tests?
Why do we have new national tests?
The tests sat by primary school children this year are new because they are the first to test the new national primary curriculum.
This covers different material from the old one and has been taught in schools only since 2014.
Therefore a totally new set of tests has been developed to measure attainment in three subjects; maths, reading, and spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Writing is evaluated separately by teacher assessment.
The tests are taken in Year 2 and Year 6, but only the tests taken by 11-year-olds are marked externally.
Department for Education officials are keen to stress that these new tests are not comparable to those taken in previous years.
Are standards higher?
The new primary curriculum was drawn up to be deliberately tougher than the old one, and is described as a «knowledge-based curriculum».
Therefore, the tests themselves are tougher than they have been in recent years.
This was a conscious decision by ministers seeking to raise standards.
They argued that the standards expected of pupils at the end of primary school had not been high enough.
How is success measured?
Previously, attainment at the end of Key Stage 2 was measured in Levels – Level 4c being the expected standard for pupils in their final year of primary school.
In the new tests, the expected standard is measured completely differently.
The expected level is set at 100, but scores can range between 80 and 120.
Effectively, anything at 100 or over is a pass and anything under is a fail.
This year, panels of teachers set the actual mark on individual test papers required to meet the expected standard.
This is based on a series of key performance indicators within the national curriculum.
Are the results comparable?
No. DfE officials describe it as a «year zero».
The tests are measuring pupils’ knowledge of a new curriculum – even if they have been studying it for only two years.
And the standard is higher.
However, it is understood the expected standard is broadly equivalent to a Level 4b.
In the old system, this meant children working securely within Level 4 with its set of competencies.
Last year, in maths 87% of pupils reached Level 4, compared with 77% of pupils reaching Level 4b.
In reading, 89% reached Level 4 and 80% reached Level 4b.
What will the results look like?
The DfE will release a set of figures representing the national average result.
It will show the percentage of pupils nationally working at 100 in reading, maths and spelling and grammar.
It will also give the percentage of pupils working at 100 in all three subjects.
Bearing in mind the raising of the expected standards and the fact that pupils have been studying this new curriculum for only two years, a lower percentage of pupils are likely to reach the all-important 100 mark than reached the old Level 4.
The fact that teachers and pupils were grappling with a completely new set of tests, with fewer practice papers, is likely to mean pupils will not do as well this year as in later years.
There have also been complaints from teachers and heads that some of the questions on the papers were harder than expected.
What will they be used for?
Ultimately, the results of the tests will be used to hold schools to account for the attainment of their pupils and the progress that they make.
Progress is measured by the distance of travel between the tests taken at the end of Key Stage 1, sat by seven-year-olds, and the results of those taken at age 11.
Head teachers have argued that this year’s results should not be used to measure schools’ achievements because of the likely volatility in the system.
Ministers have rejected that, and Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has said that only a maximum of 1% more schools than last year will be allowed to fall below the minimum standards they must meet before intervention happens.
In 2016, a school will be above the floor if at least 65% of pupils meet the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics or the school achieves sufficient progress scores in each of the «three Rs».
Fuente: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36682743

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Reino Unido: Multitudinaria marcha por el centro de Londres contra la salida británica de la UE

Noticias

Europa/Reino Unido/03 de Julio de 2016/Fuente: Agencias Londres. FarodeVigo

El vicecanciller alemán propone una reducción de las dimensiones de la Comisión Europea y un presupuesto con menos inversión en agricultura y más en investigación o educación.

Decenas de miles de personas se manifestaron ayer en el centro de Londres en contra de la salida británica de la UE («Brexit») y para pedir que el Gobierno de Reino Unido no invoque el decisivo artículo 50 del Tratado de Lisboa que iniciará el proceso de ruptura del Reino Unido con Bruselas.

Bajo el título «Marcha por Europa», unas 40.000 personas, según los medios locales, iniciaron la marcha desde Park Lane hasta la plaza del Parlamento, donde cantaron y pidieron a gritos mantener los lazos con Europa.

Mientras, continúan los movimientos en el seno del Partido Conservador para tomar posiciones ante el relevo, en septiembre, del primer ministro dimisionario, David Cameron. La diputada Andrea Leadsom surgió ayer como la principal candidata pro «Brexit», al obtener el apoyo del dirigente «tory» Iain Duncan Smith, y de varios relevantes miembros de la Cámara de los Comunes.

Leadsom ocupa una secretaría de Estado y no es conocida por los votantes, pero cuenta ya con algo más de apoyo entre los diputados conservadores que Michael Gove, ministro de Justicia y destacado miembro de la campaña por la salida británica de la UE.

La casa de apuestas «William Hill» considera ahora a Leadsom la segunda candidata mejor colocada para suceder a Cameron, después de la ministra del Interior, Theresa May, aunque con un perfil discreto.

Desde Berlín, el vicecanciller, ministro de Economía y presidente de los socialdemócratas alemanes (SPD), Sigmar Gabriel, ha pedido una reducción del número de miembros de la Comisión Europea y que la UE modifique la distribución de su presupuesto. «Una Europa en la que 27 comisarios quieren ponerse a prueba no tiene sentido», afirmó Gabriel en una entrevista con el periódico «Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung» publicada ayer.

En cuanto al presupuesto comunitario, Gabriel criticó que la UE dedique alrededor del 40% de sus fondos a la agricultura en lugar de invertirlo en investigación, innovación o educación.

En cualquier caso, el vicecanciller aseguró que el «Brexit» votado por los británicos no supone un peligro para la UE e incluso planteó la posibilidad de que Londres vuelva a unirse al bloque dentro de unas décadas.

Fuente: http://www.farodevigo.es/mundo/2016/07/03/multitudinaria-marcha-centro-londres-salida/1491701.html

Fuente de la imagen: http://sumarium.com/tag/protesta-contra-el-brexit/

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Reino Unido: Marcha por Europa congrega a miles de personas contra el Brexit

Noticias
Europa/Reino Unido/02 julio 2016/Noticia/ telesurtv.net
Los ciudadanos en contra de la salida de Reino Unido de la UE piden ante el Parlamento que se tomen medidas para evitar que el referendo sea la última palabra sobre el brexit.

Miles de personas se sumaron este sábado a la «Marcha por Europa» en Londres para manifestar su rechazo a la salida de Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (UE), decisión adoptada por la misma ciudadanía en el referendo del pasado 23 de junio.

Los británicos en contra de esta medida recorrieron las calles de Londres hasta llegar a la Plaza del Parlamento, donde realizan un multitudinario picnic anti-brexit.

«UE, te quiero» y «esperanza en lugar de odio» han sido algunas de las consignas de los manifestantes.

«Podemos evitar el Brexit si nos negamos a aceptar el referéndo como la última palabra», dijo Kieran MacDermott, organizador de la marcha y estudiante del King’s College de Londres.

La Marcha por Europa se celebra al mismo tiempo en decenas de ciudades británicas.

 

Fuente: http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Marcha-por-Europa-congrega-a-miles-de-personas-contra-el-brexit-20160702-0003.html

Fuente:http://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1467462063484/sites/telesur/img/multimedia/2016/07/02/cmw46b_xgaas19v.jpg_1718483346.jpg

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Reino Unido: NUT strike, why are teachers set to strike on July 5?

Noticias

Europa/Reino Unido/Julio 2016/Autor: Josie Gurney-Read / Fuente: telegraph.co.uk

Resumen:  El 5 de julio, los miembros de la Unión Nacional de Profesores (NUT) se movilizan en lo que será el primer día nacional de acción del sindicato desde el 2014. Los miembros votaron abrumadoramente a favor de la acción con el fin de hacer frente a la financiación de la escuela y reanudar las negociaciones sobre contratos de los maestros.

On July 5, members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) will walk out in what will be the union’s first national day of action since 2014.

Members voted overwhelmingly in favour of action in order to address school funding and to resume negotiations on teacher contracts.

In the NUT’s ballot, 91.7 per cent voted in favour of strike action, with a 24.5 per cent turnout.

It will be the latest in a series of strikes that the union has called to tackle issues that have remained similar for many years.

But in a letter written to Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, on June 28, the NUT highlighted further reasons for striking, stating that the note was a «last appeal» before action was taken.

With strike action set to affect thousands of children across the UK, what reasons have teachers given for the decision?

Haven’t we been here before?

Yes and no. In July 2014, NUT members took part in a day of action alongside members of UNISON, UNITE, GMB, PCS and the FBU.

At the time, the NUT cited pay, pensions and workload as three key reasons for walking out. According to the union, pension contribution increases and pay restraint had meant that teachers had seen a 15 per cent fall in the value of their take home pay.

Performance related pay (PRP) was also a key issue, along with the oft-quoted 60 hour working week.

So what’s new?

Workload is still an issue, but the NUT focused on funding in their letter to the Education Secretary. Writing in June, Kevin Courtney, the acting general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, warned that the funding situation in schools could get «progressively worse».

He cited forecasts from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which predicted an 8 per cent cut in funding in real terms over the next few years.

The NUT argues that these funding cuts could have «negative implications» including; an increase in class sizes, fewer subject choices for children, and cuts in support and teaching staff. All of which could affect standards overall.

Anything else?

Yes, the «de-regulation of teacher terms and conditions». In plain English? Following the Government’s push to turn all schools into academies, decisions about pay and working conditions are increasingly being made at school level, rather than following a national standard.

The NUT’s concern is that there is little evidence that making decisions, for example, on sick pay and maternity leave at school level, leads to higher standards – in fact, the union suggests that this responsibility could distract school leaders from the important business of educating children.

But pay is still an issue?

Pay is definitely still a concern for unions. At the most basic level, the NUT have said that unless pay and working conditions improve, it is unlikely that the teacher recruitment and retention «crisis» will get better at any point soon.

In short, what are the NUT asking for?

In his letter to Nicky Morgan, Mr Courtney outlined three requests to avoid the strike action.

1.-Fund schools sufficiently to cover the increased staff costs you have imposed on them.
2.-Tell academies they must at least have regard to the national terms and conditions.
3.-Promise meaningful talks to look for a full resolution of the dispute.

What have the Department for Education (DfE) said?

A Department for Education spokesman said: «It is disappointing the National Union of Teachers has chosen to take unnecessary and damaging strike action, which less than a quarter of its members voted for. It is even more disappointing when we have offered and committed to formal talks between ministers and the unions to address their concerns about pay.

“Industrial action causes disruption to children’s education and parents who have to take time out of work to arrange childcare, we urge the NUT not to proceed with this strike and to resolve pay disputes at the negotiating table rather than playing politics with children’s futures.»

Fuente de la noticia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/06/29/nut-strike-why-are-teachers-threatening-to-strike-on-july-5/

Fuente de la imagen: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/education/2016/06/23/NUT-large_trans++zPDZVAnxkOCx_pj0EK6q2ie_KZA7U11Z2fv3xK1bZa0.jpg

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

La medida de la desigualdad en América Latina

Pablo Gentili
Autor: Pablo Gentili/Fuente: El País
Oxfam acaba de presentar una herramienta de enorme utilidad para entender la dimensión de la injusticia social en Latinoamérica: la calculadora la calculadora de la desigualdad.
La iniciativa constituye uno de los aportes de la campaña Iguales, promovida por esta gran organización internacional para concientizar y articular acciones de combate a los altísimos niveles de desigualdad que existen en los países latinoamericanos. La calculadora permite observar los niveles de ingreso de la población de 15 países de la región, comparándolos con los obtenidos por los sectores más ricos, los multimillonarios que concentran gran parte de la riqueza nacional. Así, el aplicativo desarrollado por Oxfam, en alianza con el portal de periodismo independiente peruano Ojo Público, contribuye a dimensionar la enorme brecha que separa a los más ricos de los más pobres y, al mismo tiempo, a exponer las inmensas asimetrías en los rendimientos monetarios de los sectores que ocupan los niveles más altos en la escala de ingreso de las sociedades latinoamericanas. Este último aspecto permite observar de manera elocuente (y muchas veces sorprendente) la distinción entre desigualdad y pobreza, una cuestión especialmente relevante no sólo en América Latina, sino también en los países más desarrollados.

La calculadora de la desigualdad ayuda a entender de forma clara y accesible una de las principales consecuencias de un modelo de desarrollo que, como afirma Oxfam, al multiplicar privilegios, niega derechos.

¿Cuáles son los ingresos mensuales de un latinoamericano con relación al 1% más rico de su país? Fíjate aquí (si quieres comparar los ingresos en diferentes países, consulta la tabla que hemos incluido al final de esta entrada con la equivalencia entre las monedas nacionales y el dólar):

Fuente: http://blogs.elpais.com/contrapuntos/2016/06/medida-desigualdad-america-latina.html

Fuente imagen: http://www.datos-bo.com/images/img_sis/normal/desigualdad_3.jpg

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Reino Unido: UK scientists in limbo after Brexit shock

Noticias
Europa/Reino Unido/28 de Junio de 2016/Autores: Alison Abbott, Daniel Cressey, Richard Van Noorden/Fuente: Nature

RESUMEN: El 23 de junio, el 52% de los que votaron en el referendo del país se pronunció a favor de salir de la UE. Nadie está seguro de cómo ‘Brexit’ afectará a la ciencia, pero muchos investigadores están preocupados por el daño duradero. Más allá de los efectos inmediatos económicos y la pérdida potencial de financiación de la UE – que actualmente suministra cerca del 16% del Reino Unido, dinero de la investigación universitaria – los científicos temen una pérdida de movilidad entre el país y el continente. Los investigadores ya se movilizan para presionar para que el Reino Unido siga siendo un participante en los programas de ciencias de la UE, y de los fondos nacionales para compensar cualquier déficit. El Reino Unido también es de lejos el mayor receptor de préstamos a las universidades de la UE y las instituciones de investigación del Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI), que reciben más de 2,8 mil millones € desde 2005 – alrededor del 28% del total de préstamos del BEI para la educación superior y la investigación sobre ese período. préstamos convenidos son seguras, pero el destino de aquellos que apenas están empezando a ser considerado es clara, dice el portavoz del BEI Richard Willis.

The dust from last week’s vote by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is nowhere near settled, but the country’s researchers are already bracing for the fallout.

On 23 June, 52% of those who voted in the country’s referendum came out in favour of leaving the EU. No one is sure how ‘Brexit’ will affect science, but many researchers are worried about long-lasting damage. Beyond the immediate economic impacts and the potential loss of EU funding — which currently supplies some 16% of UK university research money — scientists fear a loss of mobility between the country and the continent.

“I was on a career panel only yesterday, singing the praises of the UK as a wonderful place of opportunity for young scientists, and I feel like that has changed overnight,” said Vanessa Sancho-Shimizu, an infectious-diseases researcher at Imperial College London, in response to a Nature survey last Friday. She is a Spanish national and one of many scientists who expressed similar views.

Researchers are already mobilizing to lobby for the United Kingdom to remain a participant in EU science programmes, and for domestic funding to make up any shortfalls. “We need some kind of rapid monitoring to catch fallout problems early and implement remedial measures,” says Mike Galsworthy, who led the Scientists for EU campaign.

“If the science community wants to have an impact on the UK’s negotiation strategy, it needs to clearly know what its own priorities are and start the process of making that case, strongly,” says John Womersley, chief executive of the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. Getting a guarantee to remain part of Horizon 2020, the EU’s €74.8-billion (US$82.9-billion) programme of research grants, should be the community’s top — and only — objective, he adds.

Jamie Martin, an independent education consultant who advocated for Brexit, offers “total reassurance” to worried scientists. Most academic groups had lobbied for the United Kingdom to remain in the EU. Martin says that “the good news for them is that the people at the top of the Vote Leave campaign share their instincts on science”. This includes being open to skilled people from other countries and understanding the importance of continued funding, he says.
People

Exactly when the United Kingdom will leave the EU is unclear. There is no set date for the government to invoke ‘article 50’ of the EU Lisbon treaty, but once it does, it will trigger a process of negotiation that must conclude within two years. Campaigners for a Leave vote — including former London mayor Boris Johnson, whom many expect will lead the next government — have said that there is no need to do this immediately, and informal negotiations with the rest of the EU can take place first.

Those in favour of Brexit say that a United Kingdom outside the EU could allow in more skilled researchers while still driving down overall immigration numbers. ‘Leave’ campaigners have advocated a points-based immigration system such as Australia’s, which would attempt to level the playing field between EU and non-EU researchers.

But it’s unclear whether the United Kingdom will still be attractive to talented researchers. Some have said that they feel less welcome in the country as a result of both the vote and the campaign leading up to it, which featured highly charged rhetoric around immigration.
Money

Even laboratories staffed primarily by UK nationals could feel the pinch. EU research funds have supplied an estimated €8 billion to the country over the past decade.

The United Kingdom is also by far the largest recipient of loans to EU universities and research institutions from the European Investment Bank (EIB), receiving more than €2.8 billion since 2005 — some 28% of total EIB loans for higher education and research over that period. Agreed loans are secure, but the fate of those that are just beginning to be considered is unclear, says EIB spokesman Richard Willis.

Leading campaigners for the Leave side pledged before the vote that universities and scientists in the United Kingdom who now get funding from the EU “will continue to do so”.

The country could try to negotiate access similar to the agreements that 15 other non-EU countries currently hold within Horizon 2020. But that might not be possible if the country acts to restrict free movement of people, as many Leave supporters have demanded. Switzerland, a non-EU member, is an associated country, but its researchers were cut out of full access to Horizon 2020 after the nation voted in a 2014 referendum to restrict immigration.

“The long-term future worries the hell out of me.”

“The long-term future worries the hell out of me,” says Steven Cowley, who directs the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Abingdon, UK. The centre operates the Joint European Torus (JET), a nuclear-fusion facility, on behalf of the European Commission. The contract for JET runs out in 2018, but Cowley says he is confident that it will be extended, because it provides crucial expertise for ITER, the international fusion experiment under construction in southern France. The real problem, he says, is that the United Kingdom will not be able to compete to host the next major European facility.

As for ITER itself, the EU is one of seven major international members of the project. The United Kingdom will have to rejoin it, either as an individual nation member — which would mirror its membership of CERN, the European particle-physics lab — or perhaps with ‘associate member’ status similar to that held by Switzerland.
Policy

A UK exit from the EU could also reshape the policy landscape for the countries that remain in the bloc.

Germany, Italy and Austria are among the nations that have opposed EU funding for research on human embryonic stem cells. Others, including the United Kingdom and Sweden, called for research to be funded under appropriate ethical oversight — leading to a deal in which research collaborations can be funded as long as partners from countries where the research is forbidden do not handle human embryonic stem cells themselves. The United Kingdom was “in the forefront of guiding us into an acceptable and workable way around the issues”, says stem-cell researcher Christine Mummery of the Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If the UK cannot participate in decisions like this, it makes me nervous.”

Other European scientists fear for the future of their own countries’ science bases if the UK vote empowers other anti-EU movements. Right-wing populist politicians in France, the Netherlands and Denmark are already calling for their own referendums.

James Wilsdon, a science-policy researcher at the University of Sheffield, UK, says that beyond the questions about continued access to EU funding and policy, there is a more fundamental issue that UK researchers must come to grips with: the fact that most academic experts, research lobby groups and other experts came out in favour of staying in the EU and were ignored by the public.

“Here you have such a major question around which there was such a torrent of solid analysis and empirical evidence, and we’ve had a rejection of that by 52% of the public,” he says. “That needs to provoke some serious soul searching and reflection.”

Fuente: http://www.nature.com/news/uk-scientists-in-limbo-after-brexit-shock-1.20178

 

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »
Page 72 of 84
1 … 70 71 72 73 74 … 84