Seasonal Worker Programs: A Four-Country Comparison

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
Stephen Howes
{"title":"Seasonal Worker Programs: A Four-Country Comparison","authors":"Stephen Howes","doi":"10.1002/app5.70079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper compares the seasonal worker programs of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. All four programs have experienced rapid growth over the last decade, and they have all become significant parts of their countriesʼ agricultural labour forces. But they have also all become more controversial over time, with accusations growing that these programs are both intrinsically and in practice exploitative. Since the programs have become both bigger and more controversial, not surprisingly they have all become more tightly regulated to better protect workers. What impact this greater level of regulation will have on scheme growth remains to be seen, but there is a risk that greater regulation will lead to lower or even negative growth. The article concludes with several recommendations drawn from the authors of the country studies in this special collection for ways to protect workers while containing costs to employers.</p>","PeriodicalId":45839,"journal":{"name":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/app5.70079","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app5.70079","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper compares the seasonal worker programs of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. All four programs have experienced rapid growth over the last decade, and they have all become significant parts of their countriesʼ agricultural labour forces. But they have also all become more controversial over time, with accusations growing that these programs are both intrinsically and in practice exploitative. Since the programs have become both bigger and more controversial, not surprisingly they have all become more tightly regulated to better protect workers. What impact this greater level of regulation will have on scheme growth remains to be seen, but there is a risk that greater regulation will lead to lower or even negative growth. The article concludes with several recommendations drawn from the authors of the country studies in this special collection for ways to protect workers while containing costs to employers.

Abstract Image

季节工计划:四国比较
本文对澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和美国的季节工制度进行了比较。这四个项目在过去十年中都经历了快速增长,它们都已成为各自国家农业劳动力的重要组成部分。但随着时间的推移,这些项目也变得越来越有争议,越来越多的人指责这些项目在本质上和实际上都是剥削。由于这些项目规模越来越大,争议也越来越大,因此它们都受到了更严格的监管,以更好地保护工人,这并不奇怪。这种更严格的监管将对计划增长产生什么影响还有待观察,但更严格的监管可能会导致增长放缓甚至出现负增长。文章最后提出了几项建议,这些建议来自于本特别合集中国家研究报告的作者,目的是在保护工人的同时控制雇主的成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies is the flagship journal of the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. It is a peer-reviewed journal that targets research in policy studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific, across a discipline focus that includes economics, political science, governance, development and the environment. Specific themes of recent interest include health and education, aid, migration, inequality, poverty reduction, energy, climate and the environment, food policy, public administration, the role of the private sector in public policy, trade, foreign policy, natural resource management and development policy. Papers on a range of topics that speak to various disciplines, the region and policy makers are encouraged. The goal of the journal is to break down barriers across disciplines, and generate policy impact. Submissions will be reviewed on the basis of content, policy relevance and readability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书