After the recent crisis, the Basel Committee decided to create a new regulatory framework, Basel III. This is because the recession demonstrated the inability of Basel II accord to prevent the economic crisis. Basel III on the other hand, has come to rectify all these weaknesses, however its focus is on liquidity risk and on regulatory capital requirements. For this reason, Basel III makes changes on capital definition and has increased the capital charges for derivatives and securities. Also, Basel III has introduced the liquidity and coverage ratio that the former is separated into Liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and Net stable funding ratio (NSFR), which their main objective is to increase liquidity during economic stress periods. Even though Basel III has not been fully implemented and it’s under construction, its main provisions of capital requirements, liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), Net stable funding ratio (NSFR) and the leverage ratio have been criticized as increasing the cost of bank lending to borrowers. Finally, it is argued that Basel III could have a dampening effect on economic growth.
Keywords: Basel ΙΙ, Basel III, regulation, Liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), Net stable funding ratio (NSFR)
Cristina LINCARUNational Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection – INCSMPS, Bucharest,, Romania email@example.com
Speranta PÎRCIOGScientific Manager, National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection – INCSMPS, Bucharest,, Romania firstname.lastname@example.org
Draga AtanasiuNational Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection – INCSMPS, Bucharest,, Romania email@example.com
Public Employment Services (PES) have to “react efficiently and effectively to unceasingly changing public and political demand” and also to cope successfully to the growing “competitive environment’s “demand. (Public Employment Services’ Contribution to EU 2020: PES 2020 Strategy Output Paper, 2013). One direction that allow PES to “enhancing labour market transparency and providing evidence to support policy design” is to fully exploit the informational potential provided by the registered unemployment indicator in a systemic way.
In Romania the registered unemployment administrative unit is AJOFM – County Agency for Employment and Training of the Labour Force (CAE) – the PES provider at NUTS 3 level, while the lowest administrative unit is represented by localities at LAU 2 / NUTS 5 level. The ANOFM – The National Employment Agency for Labour Force in short NEA implements the policies and strategies of Labour Ministry in the field of employment and training for the persons seeking a job. The following 4 dimensions of the unemployment risks, expressed through aggregate indices for: the level, seasonality (with 2 aggregate indices), of cohesion tendency and of the density of unemployment served to make a sketch for an System of Monitoring and Alert system of the Risk of Unemployment. The Unemployment risk for each county by 10 sub-indices (5 urban and 5 rural) by the 4 dimensions of the unemployment risk at county level is represented in radar graphs. The 10 scores for each county, are compared to scores obtained at national average and with the theoretical thresholds (maximum and minimum of the intermediary categorical scale) and finally all the counties are grouped by 4 cluster types in regard with the unemployment risk: Alarm, Alert, Balance, Low risk of unemployment and figured in Maps.
Keywords: unemployment risk, registered unemployment, local level, composite indicators, monitoring and alarm system
Vasso ARTINOPOULOUProfessor in Criminology, Head of Sociology Department, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences 136 Syngrou Avenue, 17671 Athens, Greece Co Founder and Co Director of the Restorative Justice for All Institute (London, UK) firstname.lastname@example.org
The deadlocks of the traditional criminal justice systems are reflected in the reproduction of the multiple and complex social inequalities, the high rates of reoffending and recidivism, the underrepresentation of the victims’ voices, and the overpopulated prisons. In this paper, I thoroughly analyze the Restorative Justice case through an evidence-based perspective. I examine the deadlocks of the criminal justice systems by employing recent statistics from the Council of Europe (SPACE I and II). After reviewing the state of the art, I present the potential of Restorative Justice in dealing with the crime prevention and corrections, identifying the strengths and weakness of Restorative Justice on theoretical, methodological and policy level. Original research findings from a victim-oriented approach are also presented to address the need of expanding Restorative Justice beyond the field of juvenile delinquency. The paper addresses also the economy of the Restorative Justice comparing to the traditional criminal justice systems and focuses on the social capital as a key issue for assessing the impact of Restorative Justice in the community and social level. I conclude with suggestions for a new model of Restorative Justice that brings together theory, research and practice in the criminal justice policies. The need for inter- and trans- disciplinary approaches and synergies is also stressed in the paper’s conclusions.
Keywords: Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice System, Social Capital, Human Rights, Crime Prevention Policies