Unemployment is a pertinent problem in many developed and developing regions. In fact, over the past two decades, the employment situation has deteriorated in most parts of the world. This has led to a growing anxiety worldwide over the problem, resulting in a number of recent reports and studies. The European Commission`s White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment and the OECD Jobs` study addressed the problem of high and persistent unemployment in the developed countries. There has also been studies of the employment crisis in the transition economies and in parts of the developing world. At the same time there has been growing interest, both in academic literature and in the financial press, in the employment implications of the increasing globalization of the world economy. Most of this literature has been focused on the threat to jobs in the industrialized countries from increasing economic competition from newly industrializing countries. However, there has been no comprehensive review linking together these separate strands of concern over different aspects of the employment problem.

A recent report, prepared by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), titled World Employment 1995, claims to fill this gap by analysing employment problems from a global perspective.

This is the inaugural issue of a new series of ILO reports that will review employment issues from labour perspective, on a regular basis. The Report is timed, as it appears on the eve of the World Summit for Social Development.

In 1994, the ILO estimated the world`s labour force i.e., those people either currently working or looking for work, to be 2.7 billion. Of that number, an estimated 30 percent 820 million people - were unemployed or underemployed. At least 120 million workers were officially unemployed, while many others had simply stopped looking for work. Another 700 million workers the ILO called "under-employed" - unable to earn enough to maintain minimum living standards.

The report carries a firm conviction that feasible solutions do exist in resolving the employment crisis. It argues that "employment problems are not predetermined outcomes of the workings of uncontrollable forces such as globalization, intensified competition and technical change. They are the result of social choice: commissions or omissions in economic and social policies and shortcomings in institutional arrangements". (p.v.) The report is structured in five parts. We will now see as to what each section contains.

This section surveys the growth of world trade and flows of foreign direct investment and the implications of these developments for employment. The section is clearly written from the standpoint of globalization and technological change, arguing for an international policy. It attempts to implicitly and in places even explicitly, defend globalized world economy, ignoring the inherent biases in it.

Thus it states that "A basic conclusion of this report is that, while globalization generates problems... the potential benefits far outweigh the costs." To camouflage this sweeping assessment, it goes on to offer certain qualifications, without however, diluting this basic thrust. While pointing at the salient trends of globalization, the report says, "The expansion of trade and investment flows against a background of a worldwide shift towards more open economic policies and a greater reliance on market forces should also be contributing to improved resource allocation and efficiency worldwide. Nevertheless, while essentially correct from an overall standpoint, this view of the global economy neglects difference in the position of different countries and of different social groups within these which raise serious adjustment and distributional issues" (P.5)

Further, "A striking aspect of change has been the growing divergence in growth rates among different regions of the developing world. Growth rates in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have decelerated since the 1960s while those in Asia have accelerated." (p.29). What is clear therefore, is that the gains from expanding world trade and output have been unevenly distributed so far. What is also to be noted is that the social costs of implementing major economic reforms in order to increase international competitiveness and hance reap the gains from globalization are often high.

In the same section, the report argues that while the overall impact of the Uruguay Round on employment will be favourable, there will nevertheless be problems of adjustment. The report is very much favourable to foreign direct investment and argues that there prevails generally welcoming attitude to multinational enterprises, which as per the statistics of the report, have directly created 73 million jobs worldwide by 1992, of which 12 million are in developing countries. It further argues that maximum employment has been generated in those countries which have received large amounts Of foreign investment.

But what the report has to say about the growing international inequity as a result of globalization? Are there no costs of this adjustment? While recognizing these factors, the report underplays them by stressing "mutual benefits from trade and investment flows" and arguing that "it is best to deal with these problems directly through domestic policy rather than through forgoing the clear net benefits of participating in the global economy".

This is part II of the report, where again the main argument is that in East and Southeast Asia, there has been a successful and positive response to the opportunities created by globalization and inflows of foreign direct investment, which explains their superior economic performance. By contrast, in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America there has been economic stagnation. The solution offered to counter the Sub-Saharan and Latin American experience is the need for comprehensive efforts by governments to reduce policy risks and other deterrents to both domestic and foreign investment.

The third section of the report undertakes an analysis of employment outcomes associated with the transition process in the economies of East and Central Europe. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, unemployment has risen sharply as a result of the transition from centrally planned to market-based economies. The initial years of the transition process have been characterized by sharp falls in out-put, rapid emergence of mass unemployment, inequality and poverty.

According to the report, a major challenge for transition economies is to manage the pace of trade liberalization, enterprise restructuring and privatization so that the best balance is found between the imperative of efficiency and the need to contain social costs within tolerable limits.

It is perhaps in this section i.e., the fourth one of the report that ILO comes out with certain crucial findings. Unemployment began to rise in the industrialized countries following the first oil shock in 1973, when the rate of growth of economic activity dropped by half.

The contrast, according to the report, is between persistent unemployment in Europe and stagnant or even declining wages for the working poor in the United States. Two sets of causes have been identified for the rise in unemployment in many industrialized countries. The first focuses on economic policies and their impact on growth and hence on employment. The second points to the differences in labour market regulation.

The report counters the claim often made that labour market rigidity - strong unions, stringent employment protection, generous welfare provision in contrast to the relatively unregulated labour market in the United States - is the main explanation of poor employment performance in Europe. Instead it strongly points to the fact that labour market rigidities have not been an underlying cause of past labour performance. It states, "labour market performance has deteriorated when compared with the stable environment of growth that prevailed until 1970. And this deterioration has occurred irrespective of differences in labour market regulation." Following upon this assessment of causes, the discussion then shifts to a consideration of policies that could be pursued to reduce unemployment.

The report in this section discusses the potential contribution of international policies to the reduction of global unemployment, and identifies the priority areas for international action. It argues that an enhancement of cooperative international action is an important part of the solution to current employment problems throughout the world.

To conclude, the report suggests a few initial steps to overcome the crisis of unemployment; foremost among these is the adoption of a common vision to inspire action. A second basic step is to place the issue at the centre of the international agenda. Thirdly, institutional reforms are necessary to bring about better coordination.

At every step the writers try to do a balancing act. Qualifying statements follow the overall generalization. The broad arguments remain unquestioned and are broadly assumed. The report, taken as a whole leaves one feeling uneasy. For one it ignores or marginalizes questions of migration, gender biases, vulnerable groups increasing external debt and problems of structural adjustment. More serious is the flow in its vision, especially when talking of developing countries. The report ignores the fact that the internationalism has meant the domination of developed world over the developing countries. Now the onslaught of modem technologies has considerably added to the generation of unemployment. And the solution offered by the report, for increasing employment is "modernization".

While the report at various stages, does try for a balancing act, by pointing at certain lacunae and flows in globalization with regard to unemployment, far from rejecting it, in the final analysis, it endorses it by arguing strongly for internationalism and in terms of solution stressing only "institutional" arrangements i.e., reforms from above.