Do you think that it is useful to separate “scientific” from “technological” leadership? (Anupam Tyagi, India)

Yes. A country can lead in string theory, which is nominally scientific but so far removed from technology that any technological implications are open to people outside the lead. Some countries, like the UK, have been better at the science leadership than in turning science findings into technology and products. For a developing country, it makes more economic sense to invest in the technological part and let the wealthier countries do more of the basic research.

Not that these statements are scientific, but why do you think so many technology executives decry what they call a lack of skilled engineers and scientists in the US when the unemployment rate for engineers is not lower than (perhaps higher than) most other professions? (Samuel Pavel, Brooklyn, NY, USA)

The quick economics answer is that they want to be able to hire US skilled engineers and scientists easily at as low a wage as they can. So the more there are, the better it is for them and their firms. But I think these execs are also concerned about a deeper issue - the fear that the US will lose its edge in these high tech areas and that their children or grandchildren will not get the quality of jobs they would like them to have.

The hope is that with more skilled S&E workers, the US can remain the hub of the global technology and business world. But it is a bit schizophrenic. IBM Intel, Microsoft shift more high tech to low wage countries which is good for the company and good for the world, but not for US S&E workers. More and cheaper US skilled S&Es will benefit the company and the country… but you are not going to increase US supplies if wages are below MBA wages and unemployment is no better or worse than in the professions. It is an interesting mix of self-interest and social concern.

In Taiwan, many industries move their manufacturing sectors to Mainland China because of cheap labor. It is beneficial for the whole economy, but many unskilled workers in Taiwan become unemployed. Most of them are 40 to 50 years old, so it is hard for them to find another job in the short time - maybe forever. What can the Taiwanese government do to help these victims of transition?

This is the same problem every relatively high wage country faces. The European solution has been to give high welfare benefits to the older unemployed - sometimes cloaked as early retirement or disability - but a more sensible policy would be to combine the Japanese system, where at a certain age people are regularly displaced from jobs and must look for new ones, combined with some social benefits - earned income tax subsidies - but only if they get a new job. Thus, they work at lower pay but get extra money from the growing economy through the state.

When economists model and explain economic globalization, particularly the world labor market, to what extent do they distinguish between comparative advantage and exploitation of poor populations? (Ed Garon, San Francisco, CA, USA)

No. The usual analysis is that anything the poor can do in the global economy is better than the subsistence agriculture many have been doing. This has turned out to be very shortsighted because the poor in many countries, for instance, Mexico, cannot compete with advanced country agriculture. The first thought was that Mexico would have comparative advantage in agriculture because the peasants are so cheap, but without modern agricultural technology they can’t compete.

But the biggest problem in many developing countries is that they have lost comparative advantage to China and India, so their formal sector manufacturing has diminished.

What impact will demography and telecom innovation have on the US position in the world economy? One look at China's demographic trends tells me to ignore the media hollering about them. India's 3.1 fertility rate, coupled with high-speed networks that make location unimportant to business, is my top concern. Can the U.S. "stay on top"? Does that matter? (Shawn McFarlane, St. Paul, MN, USA)

On the China/India, it depends how far you want to look into the future. UN projections say that the one baby policy will hit the Chinese work force in about 25-30 years, with the number of new entrants falling. I am a bit dubious about the Indian projections because if the Indian economy keeps doing well, we will see a demographic transition with fertility falling. But the US will lose its position as the top dog. But it can still remain a top dog, and by using our higher education system and research leadership, be the head dog (not sure of my dog analogies!)

I am concerned that the best American students will no longer go into technical and scientific professions because of the decline in job security and wages. Actually it is not the security of a particular job but the viability of the profession. This is already a clear issue in computer science with the decline of about a third in enrollment. I think in the medium term this will have a devastating impact on American scientific leadership and technological innovation. Is it possible for American science and technology to maintain its current levels of innovation and quality, or does globalization imply inevitable decline?

There are three ways we can maintain our levels of innovation and quality, though there is no way we can slow the spread of innovative activity to other areas (from which we will benefit as consumers).

First, what we have done is to bring in the “best and brightest” from overseas. Because we are the lead country and offer much better working conditions and standard of living, we should be able to attract immigrant S&E students and workers for the foreseeable future.

Second, we could greatly expand our fellowships and scholarships to S&E students, which would encourage a larger number to continue in their studies.

Third, we could beef up the S&E content of business school education so that even as science and technology advance elsewhere we make good economic use of it.

9/11 has brought tougher immigration and visa rules. US universities and the high-tech industry have strongly opposed this change, arguing that it will prevent the world’s best talent to contribute to US technological leadership. Are they right or wrong? (Heyden Lockin, Mountain View, CA, USA)

I was on the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) committee that explored the immigration and visa issues, so I have a position. Our committee strongly opposed the tougher rules. The way they were initially applied made little sense - fewer Chinese came, when the Chinese are certainly not going to be extremist terrorists, while the rules did not reduce flows from the Mideast. The state department has done a good job in applying the rules more sensibly.

What is critical is that without these immigrants, our labs and classrooms would lose so many postdocs, employees, and students that it would be a disaster. The trick is to keep the immigration door open while encouraging more US residents into the S&E fields, which I think can be done with a new national fellowship and scholarship policy.

What effect has globalization on the role of trade unions? Are competition and lower labor standards going to destroy collective bargaining? Isn’t this a frightful perspective? (Thierry Frison, Toulouse, France)

I think globalization has and will continue to weaken collective bargaining, but this need not destroy unions. There are three options for the unions.

First, to form more global union networks and use them actively. There have been some successful Internet based campaigns that have turned globalization into a source of power for unions in dealing with multinationals (see LabourStart).

Second, to base union activity outside of collective bargaining through “open source” unions (see the relevant Wikipedia Article for references).

Third is to strengthen the unions in developing countries - when China gets free trade unions, the whole world union scene will change.

Do you think that the adoption of uniform labor standards across countries could ensure a more level playing field for companies and reduce the commoditization of labor? (Kiminori Aoki, Kyoto, Japan)

Uniform labor standards on key issues of work but not on wages are in the benefit of all of us, especially if we in the advanced countries are willing to pay for improved standards in the developing countries. The pressures that the human rights activists and campaigners have put on Nike, Starbucks, etc have had a big impact on their policies and they become leaders in improving conditions (see Kimberly Elliott and my 2003 book ”Can Labor Standards Improve Under Globalization?”. In principle it is downloadable from the site, but when I tried to do this, it crashed my search engine!).