A virtual hub of workplace information and resources for the horticulture industry
Horticulture Award changes: New minimum rates and requirements for pieceworkers started 28 April 2022. We’ve updated our information and resources. For more information, see New minimum wage guarantee for pieceworkers.
Translate this website: Choose your language from the drop-down menu at top right.
Employers have to pay employees for all work they do. This includes for:
training
meetings
mandatory work activities.
Employees in the horticulture industry are usually covered by the Horticulture Award or Wine Award. An award is a legal document that sets minimum pay rates and other entitlements, like leave and overtime. Labour hire workers can be covered by these awards too.
Check what award an employee is covered by using our Find my award tool.
Employees under the Horticulture Award or Wine Award can be paid hourly rates or piece rates. They can also be paid both.
Horticulture Award
An employee covered by the Horticulture Award can be paid:
an hourly rate
piece rates, or
both hourly and piece rates.
Where an employee who is paid a piece rate does work that isn’t covered by their piecework record, they have to be paid at least the minimum hourly rate for their classification under the Horticulture Award. For example, an employee could be:
paid a piece rate for picking oranges in the morning (under a piecework record)
paid an hourly rate for picking apples or packing oranges in the afternoon (where these tasks are not covered by their piecework record).
Find out more about the requirements and obligations of hourly rates and piece rates at:
An employee covered by the Wine Award can be paid piecework rates (under a piecework agreement) and hourly rates for different types of work they’ve done in the same day or shift or over the course of a roster. For example, an employee could be:
paid a piece rate for picking grapes in the morning
paid an hourly rate for doing general labouring duties in the afternoon.
Employers can face significant penalties if they don't pay employees their correct pay and entitlements. A court can penalise a company that underpays its workers up to $666,000 per contravention. For more information about penalties, go to our Litigation page.
A piece rate is where an employee gets paid by the piece. It's based on the amount the employee has picked, packed, pruned or made. Employees getting piece rates are paid by output. For example, the number of kilograms or bins of produce picked.
A piece rate is based on individual effort only – not on group effort.
Image reminding employers and employees that piece rates are based on individual effort. They can’t be based on group effort.
Image showing that from the first pay period that starts on or after 28 April 2022 pieceworkers must get at least the minimum wage guarantee.
Full-time, part-time and casual employees who are paid a piece rate under the Horticulture Award have a minimum wage guarantee for each day that they work.
This means that for each day that they work, a pieceworker has to be paid at least the ‘hourly rate for the pieceworker’, multiplied by the number of hours worked on that day.
The ‘hourly rate for the pieceworker’ is a new term in the award and means the minimum hourly rate for the pieceworker’s classification level. For casual employees, this includes the 25% casual loading.
If the pieceworker would earn more than the minimum wage guarantee for their day’s work under the piece rate, they have to be paid that higher amount.
Examples of the minimum wage guarantee
Type of employee
Minimum wage guarantee
Level 1 full-time and part-time employees
Under the Horticulture Award, the hourly rate for a full-time and part-time level 1 employee is $20.33 per hour.
If this employee works 7.6 hours per day, their minimum wage guarantee is $154.51 per day ($20.33 x 7.6).
Level 1 casual employees
Under the Horticulture Award, the hourly rate for a casual adult level 1 employee is $25.41 per hour ($20.33 + 25% casual loading).
If this employee works 7.6 hours per day, their minimum wage guarantee is $193.12 per day ($25.41 x 7.6).
Employers can use our templates to record an employee’s hours of work and piece rate and complete piecework reconciliations:
A piece rate has to allow a pieceworker working at the ‘average productivity of a pieceworker competent at the piecework task’ to earn at least 15% more than the hourly rate for the pieceworker.
The ‘hourly rate for the pieceworker’ is the minimum hourly rate in the Horticulture Award for the pieceworker’s classification level. For casual pieceworkers, it includes the 25% casual loading.
The Horticulture Award also sets out how to work out the ‘average productivity of a pieceworker competent at the piecework task’.
Examples of calculating the 15% rule for setting piecework rates
Type of employee
Piece rate requirements
Level 1 full-time and part-time employees
Under the Horticulture Award, the hourly rate for a full-time and part-time level 1 employee is $20.33 per hour.
The piece rate has to allow the pieceworker, working at the average productivity of a competent pieceworker, to earn at least $23.38 per hour.
This is the hourly rate of $20.33, plus 15% of that rate.
Level 1 casual employees
Under the Horticulture Award, the hourly rate for a casual adult level 1 employee is $25.41 per hour ($20.33 + 25% casual loading).
The piece rate has to allow the pieceworker working at the average productivity of a competent pieceworker to earn at least $29.22 per hour.
This is the casual hourly rate of $25.41, plus 15% of that rate.
Find out more, including how to work out the ‘average productivity of a pieceworker competent at a piecework task’, at:
A piece rate is where an employee gets paid by the piece. For example, the number of grape bunches an employee has picked.
Under the Wine Award, an agreed piecework rate must allow an employee of ‘average capacity’ to earn at least 20% more per hour than the relevant minimum hourly rate in the award for the employee’s employment type and classification.
Employees in Australia need to pay tax – even if they are paid in cash.
Employees in Australia need a Tax File Number (TFN) and need to give it to their employer. Where required, the employer needs to withhold and remit tax from their employee’s pay to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
Employees who meet certain requirements must be paid superannuation by their employer. If a worker is on a temporary visa, they may be able to claim this payment when they leave.
The ATO gives advice about tax and superannuation. Find out more on the ATO website:
IT 회사 그만두고 해녀가 된 까닭은 지자체 장기체류 프로그램 통해 서울 벗어나 낯선 곳에서 내 삶을 찾는 사람들 ‘한달살이’에 숙박·체험비 지원하는 지자체… “어디든 미리 살아보고 결정해야” 제1415호 등록 : 2022-05-28
경남 거제에서 해녀로 새 삶을 살고 있는 신호진씨를 2022년 5월17일 만났다.
“더 이상 서울까지 출퇴근에 몇 시간씩 허비하지 않아도 되니 기쁘다. 거제에서 물질할 수 있게 돼서 행복하다.”
경기도 고양시 일산에 살던 신호진(36)씨는 최근 경남 거제에 정착했다. 2021년 8월 아이들과 함께 거제에서 ‘한달살이’를 한 뒤 거제의 매력에 푹 빠졌기 때문이다. 한 달 동안 거제시 옥포동 인근에 숙소를 잡고 아이들과 함께 주요 관광지를 구경했다. 만약 거제에서 산다면 어느 동네에 살지, 병원이나 학원 등은 어디에 많은지도 살폈다. “한 달 동안 아이들과 함께 살아보니 아무런 불편이 없었다. 한 달 살아보니 정착해도 좋겠다 싶을 만큼 거제가 좋아졌다.”
신씨는 직업도 바꿨다. 10년간 다니던 정보기술(IT) 회사를 그만두고 해녀로 제2의 인생을 시작했다. 바다를 좋아한다는 막연한 이유도 있었지만, 회사에서 여성으로서 미래가 보이지 않는다는 현실적인 이유가 한몫했다. “회사에 내 또래 여성은 있었지만 선배들은 모두 남성이었다. (롤모델이 돼줄 여성 선배가 없다보니) 나도 곧 회사에서 나가야 할 것 같았다. 퇴사 뒤 할 일을 찾다가 해녀는 70~80대까지도 할 수 있다는 걸 알았다.”
신씨가 아무런 연고도 없는 낯선 도시에 정착하기로 선뜻 마음먹었던 것은 ‘경남형 한달살이’ 프로그램으로 장기체류형 관광을 하며 거제의 ‘관계인구’가 될 수 있었던 덕분이다.
관계인구란 특정 지역에서 장기간 머물거나, 정기적으로 오가는 사람, 지역 상품의 꾸준한 구매자, 심리적 지지자 등을 말한다. 최근 지방소멸을 막으려면 정주인구만을 위한 주거비, 출산장려금 지원 등의 정책에서 벗어나 관계인구를 늘려야 한다는 제안이 나오면서 전국 지자체에서 장기체류 지원 프로그램을 앞다퉈 운영하고 있다.
일(Work)과 휴가(Vacation) 합친 ‘워케이션’경남은 2020년 시범적으로 5개 시·군에서 ‘한달살이’ 프로그램을 운영하다가 인기가 많아지자 2022년 프로그램 운영 대상을 18개 모든 시·군으로 늘렸다. 프로그램 참가자에게는 팀별 최소 2박에서 최대 29박까지 하루 5만원의 숙박비와 1인당 5만∼8만원의 체험비를 1회에 한해 지원한다. 대신 참가자는 자신의 체류 경험을 본인의 사회관계망서비스(SNS)에 올려 해당 지역을 홍보해야 한다.
2020년 사업을 시작했을 때만 해도 5개 시·군을 찾은 참가자가 1년에 464명에 그쳤다. 하지만 2021년에는 1555명이 참가를 신청했다. 예산 문제로 829명만 프로그램에 참여했다. 참가자 가운데는 서울과 경기·인천 등 수도권 거주자가 60%가량을 차지했다. 참가자 나이는 20~30대가 60% 가까이(488명)나 됐다. 경남뿐 아니라 최근 경북 경주·영주, 충남 보령, 전북 순창에서도 한달살이 프로그램을 진행했다.
대도시인 부산에서도 관계인구를 늘리려는 비슷한 노력이 이어지고 있다. ‘워케이션’에 집중한 점이 다른 지자체들과 다르다. 워케이션은 ‘일(Work)’과 ‘휴가(Vacation)’의 합성어로 교외에서 휴식과 업무를 함께 하는 재택근무 개념이다. 부산도시공사는 최근 ‘해운대 한 달 살기, 워케이션 패키지’를 출시했고 부산창조경제혁신센터와 지역 관광 스타트업 기업들 역시 업무협약 등을 통해 ‘부산 오래 살기’ 등의 상품을 선보이고 있다.
누구나 한 번쯤 꿈꿔봤을 한달살이 열풍은 2011년 나온 책 <제주도에서 아이들과 한 달 살기>로부터 시작됐다. 처음엔 제주도, 강원도 양양 같은 유명한 여행지에서 시작됐다면 지금은 전국 각지에서 체류형 관광을 하는 사람이 증가하는 추세다. 한달살이는 시간적·물질적 여유가 있는 사람만 할 수 있을까. 그게 아니라면 길다면 긴 한 달 동안 거주지를 떠나 낯선 도시에서 지내는 이유는 뭘까. 한달살이 경험을 했거나 현재 한달살이 중인 이들을 2022년 5월16~18일 직접 만나거나 전화 인터뷰했다.
2022년 5월17일 경남 김해에서 신동헌씨가 숲속 벤치에 앉아 노트북으로 일하고 있다.
저물어가는 것에 대한 생각학원 강사였던 조해성(35)씨는 일을 그만두고 카페 창업을 준비하면서 5월부터 경남 김해 한달살이 프로그램에 참가하고 있다. “MZ세대는 ‘뷰 맛집’ 카페를 찾아다니는 것을 좋아하는데, 김해엔 강변을 따라 경치가 예쁜 카페가 많다고 들었다. 김해에서 카페 투어를 다니며 아이디어를 얻고 싶다.”
숙소는 김해시 봉황동 근처에 얻었다. “봉황동은 ‘봉리단길’이라고 불리는 김해의 핫플레이스다. 예전에 번화가였다가 쇠퇴한 곳인데 최근 몇 년 사이 젊은 사람이 모여들어서 뜨는 곳이라더라. 노포도 많고 신규 카페도 많아서 신구가 섞인 느낌이다.”
경남 양산에서 한달살이 중인 김영일(34)씨도 마찬가지다. 청소년 관련 사회복지사로 일했던 그는 일을 그만두고 교육대학원에 재학 중이다. “내년엔 임용 준비를 해야 해서 시간이 없는데 그 전에 자신을 돌아보는 시간을 갖고 싶었다.”
가족과 분리돼 혼자만의 시간을 갖는 기회가 되기도 한다. 서울 한 대학교의 연구원인 이관호(49)씨에겐 계약이 종료돼 한 달가량 휴식 기간이 생겼다. 이씨는 4월부터 한 달간 충남 보령에서 지냈다. 아내와 초등학교 2학년인 아들은 서울에 살면서 주말마다 내려왔고 그 외엔 혼자 시간을 보냈다. “49년 만에 혼자만의 시간을 가져본 것 같다. 동해 일출은 여행지에서 많이 봤지만 처음으로 서해의 일몰을 매일 봤다. 마침 다자이 오사무의 <사양>을 읽고 있었는데 저무는 해를 보고 있자니 묘한 경험이었다. 저물어가는 것을 생각해보는 시간이었다.”
낮에 관광하고 저녁엔 논문 쓰고신동헌(38)씨는 워케이션을 위해 5월부터 김해 한달살이 프로그램에 참가하고 있다. 경기도 수원의 한 전자회사에 다니던 신씨는 2021년 자비연수를 떠났다. 룩셈부르크대학에서 경영학 석사 창업자 과정을 듣기 위함이었다. 1학기엔 대학에서 수업을 들었고 2학기엔 논문을 써내야 했다. 자신이 최고경영자(CEO)라 생각하고 어떤 제품을 개발해 어떻게 판매할지 등을 작성해야 했다. 신씨는 자신을 화장품 회사 CEO라 가정하고 황칠나무로 보습크림을 만들겠다는 계획을 세웠다. 황칠나무는 한국에 많은 나무다. 담당 교수는 한국에 가서 논문을 작성하는 게 좋겠다 권했고, 2022년 신씨는 한국에 돌아왔다. 그러나 자신의 집인 서울 성수동에선 도무지 집중되지 않았다. “서울이 아닌 곳, 친구도 넷플릭스도 없는 곳에서 온전히 논문에만 집중하고 싶었는데 마침 김해시에서 한달살이 프로그램 참가자를 모집한다는 공고를 보고 지원해서 뽑혔다.”
새로운 환경은 신씨에게 좋은 자극이 됐다. 낮에는 연지공원, 수로왕릉비, 문화의전당, 구지봉 등 관광지를 돌아보고 저녁부터 밤 12시까지 논문을 썼다. 관광 중에도 쓰고 싶은 말이 생각나 그 자리에서 노트북을 펼치기도 했다. “서울에 있을 땐 논문을 쓰다가도 쓸 말이 없어서 웹서핑을 자주 하고 온라인동영상서비스(OTT)를 보다가 시간이 흘러가곤 했는데, 지금은 산을 바라보다가도 공원을 걷다가도 유적지를 구경하다가도 쓸 말이 생각나서 노트북을 들고 다닌다.”
서울 토박이인 신씨에게 김해는 낯선 도시였다. 김해뿐 아니라 지방 소도시에 살아볼 엄두조차 내본 적 없는 그였다. “김해는 인구 50만 명의 소도시지만 없는 게 없다. 근처에 공항도 있고 전철로 부산까지 연결돼서 대중교통도 편한데다 마트, 병원, 대학도 있다. 또 가야 유적지가 잘 보존된 곳이어서 과거와 현재가 공존하는 도시라는 느낌이 들었다.”
논문을 제출하고 한달살이가 끝나면 서울로 돌아가겠지만 신씨는 언젠가 김해에 살아보고 싶다. 이미 지난 2년간 재택근무에 익숙해진 상황이다. “풀타임 원격근무가 가능해지면 수도권이 아닌 지방에서도 살아볼 수 있지 않을까. 서울에서 수원까지 매일 출퇴근했는데 코로나로 재택근무가 가능해지면서 그렇게도 일할 수 있음을 알았다. 정착이 어렵다면 김해에서 또 워케이션을 하고 싶다.”
경남 양산 통도사 들머리에서 김훈(왼쪽)씨와 친구 김영일씨가 함께 사진을 찍었다.
정착 아닌 체류형 관광도 좋아물론 한 도시에 한 달 이상 살았다 해서 모든 사람이 정착을 생각하진 않는다. 일자리나 주거지 등 현실적인 이유 때문이다. 김훈(34)씨는 친구 김영일씨와 함께 양산에서 한달살이 중이다. 4월엔 경남 함안에서 한 달 동안 지냈다. 광주에서 태어나 대학을 졸업한 김씨는 청와대 경호처에서 5년간 일하다 최근 퇴사했다. 양산에 온 것도 문재인 전 대통령의 사저가 있다는 이유 때문이었다. “문 대통령의 마지막을 배웅하지 못하고 퇴사해서 아쉬웠다. 그래서 그의 사저가 있는 양산에 와보고 싶었다.”
김씨에게 한달살이는 여행이자 일상이다. 그는 낮엔 관광하고 저녁엔 자격증 공부를 했다. “내일 부산에 가서 자격증 시험을 칠 것이다. 체류형 관광을 하면 이렇게 공부도 하고 일상적인 일도 해결할 수 있어 좋다.”
김씨는 한달살이 이후 고향 광주로 돌아가 다른 진로를 찾아볼 예정이다. “함안도 양산도 너무나 매력적인 도시지만, 일자리나 주거지 등 현실적인 문제 때문에 정착을 생각해보진 않았다. 물론 지자체에서 숙박비 지원을 해준 것만으로도 감사하게 생각한다. 한달살이 이전엔 이름도 생소했던 도시들인데 이제는 홍보대사가 될 것 같다.”
신호진씨도 해녀라는 일자리를 구했기 때문에 거제로 이주할 수 있었다. 신씨는 2021년 거제의 해녀학교에서 3개월 동안 매주 토요일 수업을 들었다. 해녀가 되는 방법을 배운다고 해서 모두가 해녀로 살아가진 않는다. 신씨의 해녀학교 동기는 25명인데 8명이 해녀가 됐다. 그러나 현재까지 해녀 활동을 하는 사람은 신씨를 포함해 2명이다. “뱃멀미가 없는 체질인데도 처음 일주일 동안은 바다 위에서 멀미했다. 한 달 만에 20㎏이 빠졌다. 코와 귀에서 피가 나기도 했다.”
물질 잘하면 해삼 30㎏, 소라 70㎏해녀는 상군·중군·하군으로 나뉜다. 상군은 최대 15m 정도까지 잠수하고 나머지는 그보다 얕은 물에서 작업한다. 신씨는 실력 차이가 아니라고 말했다. “하군은 얕은 곳에 자주 들어가서 작은 물건을 여러 번 채취해 오고 상군은 깊게 들어가서 큰 물건을 한 번에 가져온다. 아직은 배우는 단계라 깊은 곳에도 들어가보고 얕은 곳에도 들어가본다. 나는 발견하지 못한 것을 찾아내 오는 선배들을 보면서 많이 배운다.”
서울에서 직장을 다닐 때보다 수입은 훨씬 줄어들었다. 아직은 초보 해녀라 해산물을 많이 잡진 못한다. 날씨나 바람에 따라 작업량도 다르다. “오늘은 해삼 5㎏, 멍게 10㎏ 잡았지만 잘 잡히는 날엔 해삼 30㎏, 소라 70㎏도 잡는다. 우리 배에는 해녀 7명이 있는데 각자 자신의 작업량을 기록하고 선주가 유통업체에 넘긴 다음 수익을 배분해준다. 서울에서 직장을 다닐 때보다 수입은 줄었지만 20∼30년 뒤에도 이 일을 할 수 있다고 생각하면 걱정되진 않는다.”
신씨는 정신적 스트레스가 없는 거제의 삶이 만족스럽다. 하지만 무작정 이주부터 생각하기보다는 미리 살아보기를 조언했다. “서울에서 직장을 다닐 땐 내일 무슨 일을 해야 할지 생각하며 스트레스를 받았다. 출퇴근에도 왕복 세 시간 넘게 걸렸다. 거제에선 몸은 힘이 들어도 스트레스가 없다. 물질하다가 돌고래나 수달을 볼 수 있는 것도 기쁨이다. 다만 어디에 살든 꼭 미리 살아보고 결정하면 좋겠다.”
A celebration was held in Te Tumu today forRieko Hayakawa, who will be graduating tomorrow with her PhD. She started her doctorate in Media and Communications with Vijay Devadas and completed in Pacific Islands Studies where she was supervised by Jenny Bryant-Tokalau.
Dr Rieko Hayakawa and Associate Professor Jenny Bryant-Tokalau
Her topic, ‘Possibility of Telecommunication Universal Service in the Pacific Islands’ with case Studies of Vanuatu, PEACESAT and USPNet came out of Rieko’s work in the Pacific Islands for the Sasakawa Peace Foundation for whom she worked for 26 years. One of her important projects for Sasakawa was the establishment of USPNet funded by Japan which enabled the University of the South Pacific to continue its successful distance teaching programme across the Pacific islands.
Rieko has published several articles, book chapters and reports on her thesis topic and most recently presented her findings to a parliamentary committee in Japan. She will be making another presentation in Japan later this month, this time on maritime boundaries (which will be the subject of her second PhD, to be undertaken in Japan).
Rieko is the wife of Professor Glenn Summerhayes of Archaeology and Anthropology, and mother of 14 year old Kyuka.
Thesis Abstract:
This thesis is about the meaning of telecommunication for the remote islands and rural areas in the Pacific Islands through the application and assessment of the ‘Capability Approach’, developed and used by Amartya Sen in his book of “Development as Freedom”. This research also makes a major contribution to the study of ICT4D (Information and Communications Technology for Development) and development of telecommunication of the Pacific Islands, through an examination of the historical background of communication, through case studies of Vanuatu, and PEACESAT with USPNet.
In the Pacific thousands of small islands are scattered in the vast Ocean that occupies a third of surface of the Earth. Each small island is distant from the major economic centres and has a small population. Due to the economical scale of them and western colonization policy many islands did not have telecommunication service for a century after telecommunication was developed in the 19th century. In the 1970s during the cold war period, those islands had an opportunity to use free second-hand satellite from the United States and could provide higher education services and Fisheries management. In the 2000s deregulation and competition was introduced to the Pacific Islands Countries and finally Universal Service (which provided telecommunication service to the whole population) was achieved in some of PICs, such as Vanuatu.
What has been the impact of Universal Service in these countries? This study presents the result of my research in measuring the capability of ICT users, policymakers and providers, by undertaking interviews in Vanuatu using the ‘storytelling approach’. Results of this field research tell us about the dynamism of development relevance and people using ICT to magnify their Capability. Other case studies tell us that Capability does not belong to technology but to people and their will.
Rieko Hayakawa, PhD, is a Japanese scholar with an expertise in Pacific security, ICT4Development and ocean law. She is also involved in community activities on Japan-ASEAN youth under the Prime Minister's Office. She launched the upgrade for USPNet as a Japan/Australia/NZ ODA project, as well as the maritime security project for the western Pacific and many other projects.
In 2017, she proposed the Indo-Pacific strategy with maritime security to the administration of PM Abe.
She has MAs in education, international relations and a PhD in ICT4D (Otago University, NZ). Currently she is working on a second PhD in international ocean law at Doshisha University (Kyoto).
書籍 ■ Hayakawa, R., 2106. Self-determination for the Communication Policy in the Pacific Islands, in Ishihara, M., Hoshino, E., and Fujita, Y. (eds.) Self-determinable Development of Small Islands, pp.179-202. Singapore: Springer. ■ 早川理恵子 2012。 第９章「太平洋島嶼国の政治経済と地域協力」。菊池努／畑惠子編著、『ラテンアメリカ•オセアニア』、世界政治叢書６、ミネルヴァ書房、2012． ■ Hayakawa, Rieko; Richard Guy and Toshio Kosuge 〈co-editor〉2000: “Distance Education in the South Pacific: Nets and Voyages” Institute of Pacific Studies, The University of the South Pacific and The Sasakawa Pacific Island Nations Fund 2000. ISBN 982-02-0143-8 ■ Rieko Hayakawa (Editor) “Report of Pacific Islands Digital Opportunities (PIDO) Research Committee :Creating New Value and Knowledge for Pacific Islanders”
ジャーナル、論文等： ■Hayakawa, R. (2017). Possibility of Telecommunication Universal Service in the Pacific Islands; Case studies of Vanuatu, PEACESAT and USPNet (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/7139 ■早川理恵子 2016 「南洋の親日国パラオ、ミクロネシアにも中国の触手が…」月刊正論12月号 ■ 早川理恵子, “Why We Travel - What ‘Homo Mobilitas’ Can Teach The Pacific-“, 2008年1月、パシフィックマガジン（ハワイ） ■ 早川理恵子, Wasem, Higa “The Role of Telehealth in Pacific Island Human Resource for Health (HRH) Development: An Environmental Scan of Past Experiences and Potential Developments” 第21回太平洋学術会議, Asia Pacific Telecommunity Telemedicine Initiative, 2007年６月15-16日、沖縄 ■ 早川理恵子「文化財保護と観光開発における国際協力」 太平洋島嶼ワークショップ ’07持続可能な開発にむけた観光教育と文化遺産、平成19年1月30日（火）～2月1日（木） ■ 早川理恵子、Jason Aubuchon、"Web education materials for Micronesian Diaspora" 第４回「ハワイ国際教育会議」（2006.1.6-9） ■ 早川理恵子編集『太平洋島嶼国のデジタルオポチュニティ研究会報告書』笹川平和財団2004年11月発行 ■ 早川理恵子「南の島のカバ」『アル健協News & Reports June 2005』社団法人アルコール健康医学協会 ■ 早川理恵子「衛星通信と私 16」『Space Japan Review 4-5, No.16 April/May. 2001』, AIAA衛星通信フォーラム発行 ■ 早川理恵子、「民間の国際協力最終回：太平洋の島々の遠隔教育」『視聴覚教育』Vol. 54 No.12 2000. ■ Hayakawa, Rieko: Digital Divide in the Pacific Island Nations: Universal Service and the IT revolution in the age of free competition. PacificNews. NET, Vol. 5 No.7 August 2000, Hawaii ■ 早川理恵子、「国際協力による太平洋島嶼地域の情報通信支援政策PEACESATのケーススタディを通してー」(Policy for Information Network Development in the Pacific Islands through International Cooperation: Case study of PEACESAT) 青山学院大学 国際政治経済学研究科 修士論文 1998 ■ 早川理恵子、「音楽の世界から国際交流の世界へ：人と人を結び、さまざまなハーモニーに仕上げる」『国際プログラム・オフィサー』GAP（国際公益活動研究会）アルク出版 1996 ■ 早川理恵子、「オセアニアの愛唱歌」『季刊オセアニア』1993春号No.36～1997春号No.49 ■ 早川理恵子、「オセアニアの国歌」『季刊オセアニア』1989夏号No.18～1993秋号No.35
Education: Bachelor of Arts, Kunitachi Music College Master of Education, Chiba University Master of Arts in Political Science, Aoyama Gakuin University University of Hawaii Graduate Certificate ProgramTelecommunication and Information Resource Management ( TIRM), Special Research Fellow, Keio Univeristy Doctor of Philosophy, Otago University 2017 Doctoral Scholar, Graduate School of Law, Doshisha University
PhD thesis ■Hayakawa, R. (2017). Possibility of Telecommunication Universal Service in the Pacific Islands; Case studies of Vanuatu, PEACESAT and USPNet (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/7139
Book ■ Hayakawa, R., 2106. Self-determination for the Communication Policy in the Pacific Islands, in Ishihara, M., Hoshino, E., and Fujita, Y. (eds.) Self-determinable Development of Small Islands, pp.179-202. Singapore: Springer. ■ Hayakawa. R, Chapter 9, “Politics, economics and regional cooperation of Pacific Islands” in Kikuchi and Hata (eds), “Latin America, Oceania” World Politics series 6, Minerva Press, April 2012. ■ Hayakawa, Rieko; Richard Guy and Toshio Kosuge (editors): “Distance Education in the South Pacific: Nets and Voyages” Institute of Pacific Studies, The University of the South Pacific and The Sasakawa Pacific Island Nations Fund 2000. ISBN 982-02-0143-8 ■ Rieko Hayakawa (Editor) “Report of Pacific Islands Digital Opportunities (PIDO) Research Committee :Creating New Value and Knowledge for Pacific Islanders”
List of SPINF Projects ■ Developing and implementing the first (1992-1998), the second (1999-2008) and the third (2009~) program guidelines of the Sasakawa Pacific Island Nations Fund ■ Establish and Manage the “Pacific Islands Digital Opportunity Special Committee” “Pacific Islands Political Study committee” of SPINF steering committee (2006~2008) ■ Assisting develop concept and negotiating with stakeholders on maritime project (2008~) ■ Draft public comments for G8 summit (2008) ■ Draft public comments for Asia Broad Band project of Japanese Government (2002) ■ Draft public comment, “Recommendations for PALM 2006 focused on ICT project”. (2006) ■ Draft public comments for PALM 2006. ■ Submit comments for PALM 2012. Maritime and US. As the result both were included in the declaration.
■Translation and Publication of the Works of Hisakatsu Hijikata（1991～1995） ■ Inviting Newspaper Editors to Japan（1991～2008） ■ The Pacific Island Nations Scholarship Fund (1994~1997) ■Island Meeting to discuss islands（1994～1996）（2005～） ■Distance Education Development Promotion Study for the Pacific Region（1994~1995） ■Distance Education in the Pacific Islands Publication Project（1995～1996） ■Evaluation of the Japanese Language Project at the University of the South Pacific（1996～1997） ■ Coconuts College（1997～） ■ Pacific Island Digital Opportunities Research Project（2002～2007） ■ Micronesia Media Association (2007) ■ Micronesia Sea Surveillance Project (2008~)
■ Kiribati Aikido Program (1991) ■ Support for Asia-Pacific Children's Convention in Fukuoka (1991~1992) ■ The Pacific Island Education and Leadership Summit (1991) ■ Support for PEACESAT Conference (1991) ■ Japan-Micronesia Youth Exchange Program (1992) ■ The 6th Festival of Pacific Arts (1992) ■ Seminar on Relationship between Humans and Ships (1993) ■ Japanese Language Course Development Project (1994~1997) ■ Regional Youth Conference for Pacific Youth (1994) ■ Establishment of the Pacific Youth Council (1995~1997) ■ Teaching The Pacific Forum (1995~1999) ■ Feasibility Study on Transfer of Environmentally Friendly Technology (1995) ■ Pilot Archaeological Training Program in the Pacific Islands (1996~1998) ■ Enhancing the Quality of Nursing Education Through Distance Education in the Western Pacific (1997~1999) ■ Training Program for Distance Education and Learning Technologies and Applications in the Pacific Islands (1998~2000) ■ Educational Support for Better Understanding on Japan in the Micronesian Region (1999~2001) ■ Transcending Borders with Education Online (1999~2001) ■ Regional History Project of the Council of Presidents of Pacific History and Social Studies Teachers Association (2000~2002) ■ Archaeological Training Programs in Emerging Micronesian Island Nations (2000~2002) ■ PATS Staff Trainee Program (2000~2002) ■ Charting the Future Course of Distance Education in the Western Pacific (2000~2005) ■ The 2nd General Assembly of the Pacific Youth Council (2000) ■ Internet Course Development by School of Law of USP (2001~2003) ■ Distance Education in the South-West Pacific Cultural Heritage Training (2001~2003) ■ Transcending Borders with Education On-Line (2002~2004)
＜Coordinate for Evaluation projects＞ ■ Japanese Language Education in the Pacific Islands Region（1996～1997） ■ An evaluation of “The Cultural and Historic Preservation Training Project for the Micronesian Region” and a fact finding report into Aid for Cultural Heritage Project in this Region (2002) ■Internet Course Development by School of Law of USP 2004 ■Exchange Media Personnel Among The Pacific Islands Region And Japan2004
This sociologist has a plan to make America more like Sweden
By Dylan Matthews
January 9, 2014
His latest book, "Social Democratic America," was released earlier this month. It argues for an expansion of the U.S. safety net amounting to 10 percent of GDP, which would be financed by a value-added tax, higher income and payroll taxes, a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax, and include measures such as universal health insurance, universal year-long paid parental leave, universal early childhood education, insurance against drops in wages, increases to the child and earned-income tax credits, increased paid vacation time, direct government hiring of the unemployed and government-administered automatic enrollment retirement accounts, among other things. See Matt Bruenig, Matt Yglesias or the book itself for more details. We talked on the phone Wednesday afternoon; a lightly edited transcript of our discussion follows.
Dylan Matthews: "Social democracy" is discussed a lot in other countries but is somewhat foreign to American politics. What do you mean when you use that term?
Lane Kenworthy: I use it to refer to the political economy that is best exemplified by the Nordic countries, particularly Denmark and Sweden. It originated as a movement — the labor movement and affiliated political parties, which were often but not always called "Social Democratic" parties — that blossomed in the early part of the 20th century as an alternative to Communist or Socialist and other, more left-wing movements that wanted to replace capitalism.
The idea behind social democracy was to make capitalism better. There is disagreement about how exactly to do that, and others might think the proposals in my book aren't true social democracy. But I think of it as a commitment to use government to make life better for people in a capitalist economy. To a large extent, that consists of using public insurance programs — government transfers and services — to achieve three goals in particular.
The first is "economic security," and that has a long history. That was the motivating force behind a lot of the programs implemented in the Nordic countries and our own New Deal. They were aimed fundamentally at addressing problems of economic insecurity.
The second is "opportunity." No one believes any society could have equal opportunity, but we could have less unequal opportunity
The third is "shared prosperity," which is another way of talking about income inequality, though it's not quite identical. The idea with shared prosperity is that as economies grow, everyone should benefit. You don't necessarily need to be reducing income and wealth inequality, but those on the bottom should benefit when there's economic growth.
I'll add one other point, which is that, empirically, in Nordic countries social democracy has involved a lot of other stuff, as well, including very active input by confederations of labor unions and confederations of employers into policymaking, centralized wage bargaining, various kinds of regulation, and some farther-left economic proposals like the Meidner plan in Sweden in the 1970s, which never got implemented but would have steadily transferred ownership of companies to unions and their pension funds.
But I make a point in the book of suggesting that the Nordic countries rely very heavily on public insurance and less heavily on regulation than many American progressives believe, and they have been moving further in that direction over time. One indicator of that is the coinage of this term "flexicurity," which is associated with the Danish approach. The idea is that you focus more on public insurance and public services and less on regulating or constraining what employers and other people can do.
There are people who would say this is a departure from social democracy. My view is that this is a new form social democracy has taken.
You see that in non-social democracies, too, in debates about whether Clinton/Blair-style "Third Way" politics is authentically left-wing.
Right. Critics on the left said that's neoliberalism -- it's caving in to Thatcher and Reagan. Whereas other people think that social democracy is an idea and strategy that evolves over time. I'm of the latter view. But we shouldn't get too hung up on terms or names. The substance is what matters.
The proposals in the book rely on a mixture of direct provision of specific benefits or services — early childhood education, health care, parental and vacation leave — and of straightforward income transfers, like the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion or the Child Tax Credit boost. How do you think about the tradeoffs between those two ways of going about expanding the welfare state?
I think these are empirical questions. To some degree they're driven by your priors, but at this moment in history, we have empirical data to go on — not enough, but a lot more than we used to, because various countries have tried various things. We certainly don't know everything. For instance, some people on the left and some on the right think the real way forward is a basic income grant. No country has tried that, so we can only speculate on what that'd do compared to the array of programs we have now. But different countries have tried different things, and I try to be flexible and pragmatic in thinking about what might work. A lot of what I suggest we do is based on previous experiences. Paid parental leave, for example, has existed for more than a generation in some European countries, as have universal child care and preschool.
The right thing to do is to look at the evidence. That doesn't mean we should write off untried approaches, but I try as best I can to look at evidence from actually existing rich countries, including our experience here in the U.S. We have some excellent programs (though nothing's without flaws), not least of which is the EITC, which is one of our own innovations that the Swedes, among others, have now copied.
A 10 percent of GDP expansion of government sounds like a lot. Put that in perspective for us.
The best number, to give people a sense of where we are now, is government spending as share of GDP in 2007, because recessions throw these numbers out of whack. At that moment we were at about 37 percent, including all levels of government. If we went up by 10 percent — and I should say that the 10 percent is just a ballpark estimate — we'd be slightly above the average of the 20 rich countries that I use as a basis of comparison. I'm projecting that that might be where we end up in 2060 or so.
What role do you see for states here? A lot of our existing safety net, including Medicaid, TANF, the Obamacare exchanges and SCHIP, is state-based.
If I were designing our government structure from scratch, I'd probably have a lot less federalism, though it does allow for experimentation and the ability to respond to local needs. But that's the reality we're stuck with, and any changes going forward will be affected by the fact that we do have this structure.
Some on the left would say that, to get median wages rising again and improve things for the working class, we need to affect distribution before taxes, transfers and services through things like cutting the trade deficit, reducing low-skilled immigration or increasing union density. Why don't you take that approach?
It's a combination of two reasons. One has to do with my normative inclinations. So, for example, I would be against reducing immigration because people who come here tend to be poorer than even the poorest Americans, and their lives tend to be better off because they came. Even though I agree that the evidence suggests immigration reduces the wages of low-skilled native workers, I still think we shouldn't cut back on immigration.
The same thing is true with imports. Imports and foreign direct investment abroad and various other aspects of globalization benefit workers in China and other developing nations. Even though I agree that imports and investment flow out of the U.S. are part of our wage problem, I still wouldn't favor addressing the problem in that way, because I think it'd do more damage to those with an even lower standard of living.
There's also technological change — robots putting people out of work — and I don't think we want to stop technological progress. It's tended to do a lot more good than harm, so I don't want to move in the direction of blocking that.
The second reason is that I'm very pessimistic about our ability to do the kinds of things that might boost wages for those in the lower half of the distribution. One is to increase union strength. I think it'd be a good thing if we could, but I don't think anyone's come up with a plan for how to do that. I look at what's happened in Western European countries, and I see union density declining nearly everywhere, except places where you can't get unemployment insurance without being a union member. So I'm pessimistic about that.
There have been fundamental changes in the way that our economy functions. There have been changes in corporate governance, with the shareholder value movement and the glorification of CEOs. There's been a continued shift away from manufacturing to services, particularly low-end services, where it's tough to increase productivity. There's been an increase in firms doing pay-for-performance, where they try to measure productivity and tailor pay to that, instead of wages based mainly on seniority, and that, too, has helped accelerate this divide. The winner-take-all market phenomenon, also -- I don't really see the path whereby we reverse that.
Some people advocate salary caps, and some version of that may come to pass in certain ways. But I think it becomes hard to justify that when you have hedge fund folks or athletes or people in finance who aren't executives and aren't getting most of their money from salaries, who continue to get these very high compensation levels. I don't see, in practice, how we could do it. It's not that I'm opposed, say, to turning back the "shareholder value" orientation or increasing unionization. I'm just very pessimistic, in practice, about our ability to do that.
Kenworthy is skeptical that the decline in union density can be reversed. (AP)
There seem to be two arguments that lefties who focus on increasing union density make. One is that unions boost wages through collective bargaining, which if I understand correctly is what you were just talking about. The other is that they provide a political base for defending and expanding the welfare state. How much do you buy the latter argument? Do we need stronger unions if we're going to pass the proposals in this book?
I think it's a sensible concern. If you look broadly, historically, at these 20 or so rich democratic countries, it's very clearly the case that countries with stronger and more centralized labor movements have gone further, faster in introducing generous public insurance programs.
But at the same time, an awful lot has happened here in the United States despite the fact that we have a comparatively weak labor movement. You could infer from the state of American labor that prospects for advances in social programs are going to diminish severely, but I'm far less pessimistic.
I think social scientists don't have a very good story or explanation for when and why social policy advances have come. We have a pretty compelling explanation for why countries have varied in the speed and extent of their social policy advances, but not for why things have or haven't happened here in the U.S., or at least no good systematic explanation for that.
You can point to social policy advances where the labor movement wasn't leading the charge, including Medicare and the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Affordable Care Act. It's not that they weren't involved at all, but it's very hard to tell a compelling story wherein these things happened mainly because the union movement pushed for them. That leads me to be a lot less pessimistic than a simple version of that political economy story would lead one to be.
Another argument you hear is that only small, homogeneous societies like Denmark or Sweden can muster the level of social solidarity necessary to pass this stuff. I gather you're more optimistic than that, too?
That view, like the labor power view, tends to think of this in categorical terms. You have strong or weak labor, homogenous or heterogeneous societies. I think it's much more useful and accurate to think of it as a continuum. A stronger labor movement helps, but it's not as if we have no welfare state without one. We have a much more expansive welfare state, in terms of transfers and services, than we did a hundred years ago. We've gotten steadily better over time, despite having a weak labor movement and a diverse society.
I suspect homogeneity does make a difference in the degree and pace at which social policy advances, but I don't think the categorical approach is really the right way to think about it. We have a lot of impediments that have led us to go at a much slower pace than many other rich nations, but we have advanced, and I think we'll continue to in the future. Another way that I think about this is that, in terms of social policy size and scope, there's much less distance between the U.S. today and Sweden and Denmark today than between the U.S. in 1914 and the U.S. today.
(Photo by Kristoffer Tripplaar/EPA)
Something of a debate broke out after President Obama's inequality speech about whether inequality per se ought to be Obama's primary concern, or whether things like poverty, median wage stagnation and full employment should be bigger priorities. Our own Ezra Klein is in the latter camp. You've weighed ina bit on this, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on how to think about that question.
I have mixed feelings. A good bit of the research I've done in the last 20 years or so has been on income inequality and various causes and consequences of it across countries, and it's something I care a lot about. But I think it's probably not the right issue for the American left to put front and center. I think it should be one of these issues; shared prosperity, one of my three objectives in the book, is a way of thinking about income inequality.
There are two reasons why I worry about making income inequality the central issue. One is just the simple, pragmatic one, which is that public opinion data tell us that Americans haven't felt this should be a key issue for policymakers to address. Unless that changes, it may not be politically all that sensible to focus on inequality. An alternative is to focus on other themes, which may lead you to policies that would have the consequence of reducing income inequality. If you emphasize opportunity, you could get early education or an increase in the minimum wage and EITC, and some of those would also help to reduce income inequality.
Maybe things have changed in the last year. There's been an awful lot more attention — first after Occupy Wall Street, but now it's back — so maybe Americans are now more receptive to inequality. It could be that income inequality is exactly the thing to focus on, even if your primary goal isn't to reduce inequality but to increase economic security or improve opportunity. Maybe, like [new New York City Mayor Bill] de Blasio, you can make it a centerpiece of your campaign, and in practice do stuff like universal pre-K that fundamentally addresses these other goals. So, I'm not sure whether I'm right or not. My concern about the politics is based on how things have played out up to now.
The second reason is more substantive and has to do with revenue. If your goal is to reduce income inequality, you're likely to focus on increasing taxes for those at the top and making the tax system more progressive. But if your goal is to deal with things like economic security and opportunity, or even shared prosperity, I argue in the book that you want to look to public insurance.
To do that we need more revenue, and we can't get close to the quantity of revenue we'd want and need if we focus on those at the very top. We'd have to raise the effective tax rate on the richest one percent or five percent way above what it's been historically, and that's just implausible.
It's also not the way it's done in all actually existing countries that have a more generous array of social insurance. They all have flat or proportional tax systems, and use them to have very progressive transfers and services. So it's not as though they sock it to the rich more than we do. Their tax systems are slightly less progressive, though it's hard to measure. We have a slightly more progressive, or less regressive, tax system than other affluent nations.
So I worry that the focus on income inequality distracts us from where we want to go. We need to overcome this idea that we ought to keep taxes for most Americans at current levels or even reduce them. If you're aimed at inequality, you may think you want to increase taxes only on the rich, and that wouldn't get us the revenues we want and need.
Save us, Janet Yellen! You're our only hope! (Kiyoshi Ota / Bloomberg)
Where does monetary policy, and efforts to ensure full employment, fit into this for you? How important is that to achieving social democracy?
A number of people, most clearly and carefully Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein in the book they just published, "Getting Back to Full Employment," as well as Robert Pollin in his book a few years ago, have pointed out the need for full employment. I fundamentally agree with them. I think full employment or something akin to that is probably our best hope for getting wages rising again for Americans in the bottom half. As I suggested earlier, I'm not high on other strategies, like slowing down globalization, and I'm pessimistic about other proposed mechanisms, like increasing union strength, so I think full employment is probably our best bet.
In the past generation, wages have been pretty much stagnant for the lower half, and the only period during which wages rose across the board was the late 1990s. I'm pessimistic that we can achieve this because it's only happened once in the past generation, and when it happened, it was idiosyncratic. It was [then Federal Reserve Chairman] Alan Greenspan overruling the Fed board and keeping interest rates low. It was exactly the right thing to do in helping the labor market and wages, but I fear it's unlikely to happen again.
It could be that with the experience of this crisis, the continuing stagnation of wages in the lower half and Janet Yellen coming in to head the Federal Reserve, that we could have a new approach to full employment and monetary policy that says: When the economy gets humming, we need to keep rates low for longer than we did in the 1980s and the 2000s. I hope that happens, but I'm not optimistic. I very much hope I'm wrong. If we spend more time at or near full employment, that's terrific both in and of itself and because it takes pressure off of social programs in terms of how much help they need to provide.
