Professional Documents
Culture Documents
956 956
123 111 123
20 16 16 20
3 2 1 2 3
127
65 56
33 ? 24
15 16 10 12
GD -TOPICS
As globalisation speeds on, goods, services and people are moving across national
borders as never before. Recently, one group of migrants – those “highly skilled” in
science and technology – has become the focus of worldwide scrutiny.
There are few reliable statistics on the movement of people around the globe, and even
fewer on those of the highly skilled. This is not surprising. It's a highly complex
phenomenon, further complicated by a lack of internationally agreed definitions and data
collection methods.
Problems with national disparities don't stop there. One country's methods of gathering
data can differ widely from another's. This may include population censuses (exhaustive,
but usually only taken once a decade), labour force surveys (yearly, but involving small
samples that do not allow detailed analysis of a relatively small population), specialised
surveys (such as the SESTAT system in the United States, which covers a large sample of
research scientists and engineers), and administrative data (such as work permits and
visas).
For an accurate assessment, the countries involved need to coordinate and compare their
statistical research. But this is still far from being the case.
The data we do have reveals that by and large the number of highly skilled people
moving from poorer to richer countries is quite significant, especially from Asia to the
United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. And these figures are rising,
particularly among students and skilled professionals such as IT workers.
An estimated 900,000 of such highly skilled professionals entered the American labour
market between 1990 and 2000 under the so-called H-1B temporary visa programme.
While this represents less than half the total number of temporary migrants entering the
United States (1.9 million) – most of whom relocate on humanitarian grounds or to join
their families – the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
estimates that such individuals account for one-sixth of the country's total IT workforce.
In Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent in Denmark, Finland
and Italy, highly skilled foreign or foreign-born workers are a relatively important
component of the professional workforce. This is in stark contrast to Japan, where in the
late 1990s less than 0.2 per cent of the total number of highly skilled workers were
foreign.
Increasingly, the OECD countries aim to attract specialised foreign students –especially
in science and technology – and eventually help them join the domestic labour market.
While the United States attracts the greatest number of foreign students – a third of all
those studying in the OECD – more than 10 per cent of university students in Australia,
Switzerland, Austria and the United Kingdom are foreign.
What are the underlying reasons for these global shifts? The first is rising demand in the
developed world. During the second half of the 1990s, the number of researchers grew by
5 per cent per year in the OECD, and by 7 per cent in the United States alone. The need
for IT specialists rose even more rapidly. But education and training lagged behind,
resulting in a dearth of 'home grown' candidates.
For many industrialised nations, recruiting abroad appeared to be the obvious solution.
And workers in the South, faced with few opportunities at home, felt they could benefit
from the attractive market conditions in the North. Many countries therefore began to
take a proactive approach to attracting highly skilled workers – a second reason for this
surge in numbers. Most OECD governments, for example, went so far as to set up special
policies to make it easier for highly skilled workers to get a visa, especially for temporary
stays.
Australia and Canada, which have long had such policies, recently reinforced them. And
between the early 1990s and the early 2000s, the United States upped its quota of people
eligible for the H-1B visa by a factor of three, with numbers now running to 195,000 a
year. Germany meanwhile adopted the “green card” system, which allows skilled
immigrants and their families to stay in the country for five years.
What has emerged is that some countries are far more successful than others in attracting
highly skilled workers. Immigration policies matter, but they're not the whole story.
Germany, for instance, aimed to attract 20,000 skilled workers with its green card system
but, three years on, had only gained 13,000 individuals. Cultural conditions are
important, as is language, with English-speaking countries tending to be more popular.
The crucial factor in luring the highly skilled, however, is the quality and number of job
opportunities a country can offer. The rapid expansion of the American IT industry –
largely the result of available venture capital, markets opening to competition and new
entrant firms – makes the United States a particularly attractive option.
Research systems organised on the basis of merit also appear to be vital. Those based on
seniority, as is the case in Japan and many European countries prove unattractive to
migrants – and even a reason for their best researchers to move abroad.
The quality of education and research is another important factor. Bright students from
developing countries, drawn to the top universities in the North, tend to stay and work in
host countries after they have completed their studies. So many foreign highly skilled
workers were originally students who have now changed status, a process helped by
generous policies. For instance, in 1999, a quarter of the immigrants living and working
in the United States on H-1B visas had arrived as university students. And more than half
of those benefiting from a special visa procedure in France in the late 1990s were foreign
students already living in the country.
Is everybody happy?
For the countries on the receiving end of this trend, the benefits are clear. A boost to the
highly skilled workforce spells innovation and wealth. Skilled migrants have also become
high-tech entrepreneurs. It is estimated that in 1998, a quarter of Silicon Valley firms
were headed by immigrants from China and India, collectively generating almost
US$17 billion in sales and more than 50,000 jobs. Intel, Ebay and other well-known
'American' names were in fact conceived by non-US nationals.
As they tend to develop more extensive connections abroad than nationals, immigrants
also help host countries to strengthen links with international networks of science and
technology. At the same time, however, they may have a negative impact on the wages of
nationals.
For the countries 'losing' many of their best and brightest, the overall effects are less
clear-cut. Inevitably, the emigration of highly skilled people can place a heavy burden on
basic social services, including education and health. Doctors and nurses leaving Ghana
or South Africa to pursue careers abroad, for instance, has proved disastrous for their
home countries.
And even the very nature of the 'brain drain' is debatable. It is certainly not always one-
way, a factor that has led to the notion of a 'brain circulation'. Some countries with fast-
growing economies, such as Ireland, Chinese Taipei and South Korea, are beginning to
see the return of many who have suceeded abroad. With their experience, foreign capital
and connections, these people have been able to kickstart high-tech industries on home
ground. For example, the software boom in Bangalore – India's "Silicon Valley" – rests
largely on Indian returnees from the United States.
India, by contrast, has had to develop with scarcity. It gets scant foreign
investment, and has no room to waste fuel and materials like China. India also has
Western legal institutions, a modern stock market, and private banks and
corporations. As a result, it is far more capital-efficient. A BusinessWeek analysis
of Standard & Poor's (MHP ) Compustat data on 346 top listed companies in both
nations shows Indian corporations have achieved higher returns on equity and
invested capital in the past five years in industries from autos to food products.
The average Indian company posted a 16.7 per cent return on capital in 2004, vs.
12.8 per cent in China What holds India back are red tape, rigid labor laws, and its
inability to build infrastructure fast enough. With Beijing now pushing software
and pledging intellectual property rights protection, some Indians fret design work
will shift to China to be closer to factories.
53. A Unipolar World spells disaster for underdeveloped countries like India.
59. With media publishing and telecasting trivia, censorship is the need of the
hour.
60. Kaun Banega Krorepati is less about knowledge but more about money
and personality.
62. The rise of regional blocs threatens independent nations like India
76. Does banning fashion shows and New Year parties save our culture?
79. From public sector to privatization as in the U.K., is the right answer for
India's instant economic breakthrough.
81. Some simple but effective electoral reforms will enable us to retain the
present parliamentary system and ensure the preservation of democracy
in India.
85. The policy of reservation is a legacy of the British and it has done more
harm than good.
86. For a marketing post graduate, without prior work experience working in
a big marketing firm is a disadvantage when compared with working in a
small firm. Discuss.
91. .Formulate the government's health policy to control the spread of AIDS.
99. Higher education should be made possible only for those who can pay for
it.
Boon or bane?
Gone is the age of steam. We are now in the age of hydrogen bombs and electricity. The most
fantastic dreams of H.G. Wells in his novel Dream have come true. Thus, in this space age, where
the wonders of science excel the wonders of nature, science affects our day-to-day life. Science has
surpassed the old miracles of mythology and yesterday's faith has proved to be today's superstition
in the crucibles of science.
Yet the problems is whether science is a boon or bane to society. Science is truth, truth is beauty
and beauty is god. Science nurtures intelligence but leaves the will and emotions uncared for. It is
said that knowledge comes but wisdom lingers. Science triumphs in automating processes but now
it reigns over man. Automation is the order of the day. The spectre of war and destruction haunts
the world and nobody is safe. Controlling scientific knowledge with moral judgment may be a
solution to this dilemma. Audiovisual appliances annihilate times and distances. Science is the
handmaid of modernity. But more valuable than these concrete achievements is the spirit of
science. Science means systematised knowledge. It finds the causes of phenomena and works
through observation and experiments. Science is the torchbearer of civilisations.
Is science really a bane? It is said that science is a good servant but a bad master. As religion is a
matter of faith, science is a matter of fact. Modern warfare is destructive beyond the wildest dreams
of our unscientific predecessors. Machine guns, shells, submarines, the atom and hydrogen bombs
can destroy the world in the twinkling of an eye. Aeroplanes in war act as engines of mass
destruction. Not only in times of war but in times of peace also man lives in the midst of disease.
Though cures are being invented diseases are multiplying too. If the former is in arithmetic
progression, the latter is in geometric progression. That is why peace lovers blame science as a
curse.
It is said that mathematics makes men subtle and history makes men wise. Likewise, science whets
the human intellect. It supplements him with astute knowledge and adds to his comforts. It should
be refined by the philosophy of love, by a desire to tolerate others and then man will be able to
avert the evil effects that may follow from the misuse of science. An integrated educational pattern,
which makes the scientist aware of his social responsibilities may be the panacea to the present
pandemonium.
137.East Is East & West Is Where All The Action Is': Mark Twain
139.
Biodiversity: what it is, why it matters, and how its conservation must be built into
development strategy
Cristián Samper
The author is director of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC,
United States. He is the founder of the Humboldt Institute for Biological Research in
Bogota, Colombia.
Biological diversity – more commonly known as biodiversity – is a collective term used
to describe the totality and variety of life on Earth. In addition to individual organisms
themselves and the genetic variability among them, the term also covers the ecosystems
in which they live, in other words the various ways in which species interact both with
each other and with their surrounding environment.
The term biodiversity, coined in the mid-1980s, has come to prominence because of its
value in helping to understand and characterise the ways in which the biological
organisms and processes
Of course, such damage is not new; it has been associated to some extent with all forms
of industrial activity. What is new is a growing realisation that many of these changes
(such as the loss of natural species) are irreversible. It is also being acknowledged that
many of the processes being interfered with are essential to the well-being of humanity.
For we rely on the existence of biodiversity for our food, our clothing, our building
materials and our medicines. In addition, the biodiversity that surrounds all human
societies is a potent source of cultural and spiritual values.
Realising that humanity pays a price for the loss of biodiversity has led governments,
both individually and collectively, to take measures to curb the negative effects of social
activity on the natural environment – in other words, to protect global biodiversity. Yet
these protective measures can, in turn, create their own problems. Since they are designed
to curb various forms of social and economic activity, they can – unless carefully handled
– also reduce the benefits that such activities bring with them.
In some parts of the world, this may be a relatively minor
inconvenience such as requiring motorists to pay more for petrol
that is less polluting to the environment. Elsewhere, however,
livelihoods may be at stake: forbidding the cutting down of forests
in areas where these provide the only fuel for cooking or the only
source of economic income, can prove disastrous for the
communities concerned.
Biodiversity and development
Reconciling the need to protect global biodiversity with the equally strong – some would
argue even stronger – need to promote social and economic growth, particularly in the
developing world, has therefore become one of the biggest challenges of the modern era.
It is, for example, embedded in the concept of 'sustainable development'. This is a loose
term used to express the idea that development strategies are only acceptable if they are
achieved in an 'environmentally sustainable' way – one that preserves global biodiversity
for use and enjoyment by future generations.
Other commitments are to be found in a range of international agreements that have been
passed over the past 20 years. These include in particular the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), which was signed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The
Convention commits signatory states (188 to date) to a broad range of measures
conserving biodiversity. At the same time, it seeks to ensure that this protection is
achieved in a way that is compatible with efforts by signatory states – and developing
countries in particular – to promote their social and economic development.
"...reconciling the need to protect global biodiversity with the equally strong need to
promote social and economic growth, particularly in the developing world, has
become one of the biggest challenges of the modern era..."
CBD signatories promise to conserve biodiversity, use it sustainably, and share its
benefits in an equitable way. This, for example, might include a pharmaceutical company
There is a growing body of evidence to demonstrate that we are facing another great
extinction. Worse still, the rate of loss appears to be accelerating; more species have
become extinct in the past 500 years than at any other time in history. Modern
agricultural and industrial practices, combined with large increases in population and
changing consumption patterns, have all taken their toll. Unless biodiversity loss can be
slowed, species numbers could fall below a critical threshold beyond which they are
unlikely to recover.
Yet efforts to prevent this scenario must be compatible with promoting the well-being of
the human societies that frequently – particularly in the developing world – live in close
proximity. This means promoting development policies that simultaneously preserve
biodiversity and enrich the livelihoods of those societies in close contact with it.
Satyam gd topics
Satyam GD Probables:
1.A Unipolar World spells disaster for underdeveloped countries like India.
2.Is Globalisation Really Necessary?
3.What shall we do about our ever-increasing Population?
4.Corruption is the price we pay for Democracy.
5.Foreign Television Channels are destroying our culture.
6.What India needs is a Dictatorship.
7.With media publishing and telecasting trivia, censorship is the need of the hour.
8.Kaun Banega Krorepati is less about knowledge but more about money and personality.
9.Beauty contests degrade womanhood
10.The rise of regional blocs threatens independent nations like India
11.Six billion and one bronze!
12.Is dependence on computers a good thing?
13.Should the public sector be privatised?
14.China and India are similar nations with contrasting ways
15.Is India a Soft Nation?
16.Value based politics is the need of the hour
17.Religion should not be mixed with politics
18.How to deal with high oil prices
19.Our cricketers are not to blame for match fixing
20.Why cant we be world players in industry as we are in software?
21.Multinational corporations: Are they devils in disguise?
22.Should there be limits on artistic freedom (the controversy on Fire).
23.Should there be private universities?
24.Does banning fashion shows and New Year parties save our culture?