upstage/dp-bench huggingface dataset:
content: text: Figure 1.10. Migrant remittances inflows (in US$ billion)

content: text: 800 90
694 719
702
700 640 80
610 597
602
70
600
60
78 75
500 75
69
66 50
63
400
61
40
300
30
200
20
100
10
0 0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
ASEAN (right axis) World (left axis)

content: text: Source: World Bank and KNOMAD (2021)

content: text: Table 1.4. Growth in migrant remittance inflows

content: html: <tr><td rowspan="2">AMS</td><td colspan="5">Average Annual Growth</td><td rowspan="2">Remittance inflows in 2020 (US$ Million)</td></tr><tr><td>2000-2004</td><td>2004-2009</td><td>2009-2014</td><td>2014-2019</td><td>2019-2020</td></tr><tr><td>Cambodia</td><td>7.5%</td><td>-0.7%</td><td>50.6%</td><td>6.7%</td><td>-16.6%</td><td>1,272</td></tr><tr><td>Indonesia</td><td>9.4%</td><td>29.5%</td><td>4.7%</td><td>6.4%</td><td>-17.3%</td><td>9,651</td></tr><tr><td>Lao PDR</td><td>4.0%</td><td>115.7%</td><td>38.0%</td><td>9.5%</td><td>-10.6%</td><td>265</td></tr><tr><td>Malaysia</td><td>18.6%</td><td>7.1%</td><td>6.9%</td><td>0.7%</td><td>-11.2%</td><td>1,454</td></tr><tr><td>Myanmar</td><td>2.7%</td><td>-14.1%</td><td>102.7%</td><td>5.4%</td><td>-7.1%</td><td>2,250</td></tr><tr><td>Philippines</td><td>10.6%</td><td>11.7%</td><td>7.5%</td><td>4.2%</td><td>-0.7%</td><td>34,913</td></tr><tr><td>Thailand</td><td>-0.9%</td><td>18.6%</td><td>11.4%</td><td>4.6%</td><td>-1.2%</td><td>8,067</td></tr><tr><td>Viet Nam</td><td>11.5%</td><td>21.1%</td><td>14.8%</td><td>7.2%</td><td>1.2%</td><td>17,200</td></tr>

content: text: Source: World Bank and KNOMAD (2021)

content: text: In the Philippines, of the returning Filipino migrant workers in 2020, 55 percent
earned a monthly income of between PHP20,000 and PHP50,000, and 19
percent earned between PHP5000 and PHP20,000. Before their return, 50
percent reported remitting amounts ranging from PHP10,000 to PHP20,000
(US$200 to US$400) monthly. It is highly unlikely that the families of these
migrant workers would have savings to rely on after they lost their jobs.
Additionally, 83 percent of these workers were still unemployed after three
months, resulting in a 60 percent drop in household income for 48 percent of
the returned migrant workers.

content: text: ASEAN Migration Outlook
content: text: Executive
Summary

content: text: I ndia suffers from 'regulatory
cholesterol' that is getting in
the way of doing business. The
legislations, rules and regulations
enacted by the Union and State
governments have over time created
barriers to the smooth flow of ideas,
organisation, money, entrepreneurship
and through them the creation of jobs,
wealth and GDP.

content: text: The presence of hostile clauses in these
laws, rules and regulations has grown
since Independence, surviving three
decades of economic reforms initiated in
1991. The biggest challenges come from
the continuance of impriscoment as a tool
of control. As automation increases in
the coming years, the pre-Independence
1940s-style administrative controls
meant to protect labour will prove
counter-productive in 21st-century India.

content: text: There are 1,536 laws that govern
doing business in India, of which 678
are implemented at the Union level.
Within these laws is a web of 69,233
compliances, of which 25,537 are at the
Union level. These compliances need to
be communicated to the governments
through 6,618 annual filings, 2,282
(34.5 percent) at the Union level and at
the states, 4,336.

content: text: These changes in compliance
requirements occur constantly and
add to business uncertainty. In the 12
months up to 31 December 2021, there
have been 3,577 regulatory changes;
content: text: III.
Regulatory
cholesterol

content: text: T his report defines
'regulatory cholesterol'
as the policy actions of
the three arms of the State, i.e. the
executive, the legislature, and the
judiciary, using the instruments of
legislations, rules, regulations or
orders, to create or raise barriers to
a smooth flow of ideas, organisation,
money and most importantly, the flow
of the entrepreneurial spirit. In India,
a wrong political choice in the early
decades of Independence has created a
policy fraternity that shuns data and
causalities and leans on rhetoric and
ideologies to frame economic policies.
Inflation in the 1970s, for instance, was
not caused by hoarders and speculators;
it was a matter of supply and demand.
"Excoriating, coercing, or imprisoning
the hoarders and speculators changes
nothing in terms of creating new
supply," write Vijay Kelkar and Ajay
Shah.28 "The economic theory of people
hostile to economic forces is wrong."

content: text: By taking one policy tool -
imprisonment - this report highlights
the excesses of overregulation and
the resultant regulatory cholesterol
while doing business in India.
Although the biggest constituency
at the receiving end of these laws
is that of entrepreneurs running for-
profit firms and corporations, this
regulatory overreach also impacts
not-for-profits such as schools and
hospitals-both necessary institutions
for India with a huge demand. Step
content: text: Jailed for Doing Business

content: text: TABLE 22: COMMERCIAL LAWS WITH MORE THAN 100
IMPRISONMENT CLAUSES

content: html: <tr><td>Law</td><td>Union/State rule</td><td>Imprisonment clauses</td></tr><tr><td>Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules 2016</td><td>Union</td><td>152</td></tr><tr><td>Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 & Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011</td><td>Union</td><td>123</td></tr>

content: text: Source: TeamLease Regtech

content: text: TABLE 23: IMPRISONMENT CLAUSES IN ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS

content: html: <tr><td>Imprisonment term</td><td>Number of clauses</td><td>Number of laws</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 3 months</td><td>150</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>3 months to less than 1 year</td><td>199</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>1 year to less than 3 years</td><td>326</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>3 years to less than 5 years</td><td>357</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>5 years to less than 10 years</td><td>147</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>More than 10 years</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr>

content: text: Source: TeamLease Regtech

content: text: NOTE: The inconsistency in number of laws is because a single law could have
multiple clauses on criminality; it could have a few clauses of less than
three months and few of between three and five years.
content: text: Appendices

content: text: TABLE 28: BREAKDOWN OF IMPRISONMENT CLAUSES IN
STATE LAWS

content: html: <tr><td>Imprisonment terms</td><td>Number of clauses</td><td>Percentage of all states</td><td>Percentage of total</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 3 months</td><td>4,448</td><td>21.3%</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><tr><td>3 months to less than 1 year</td><td>4,806</td><td>23.0%</td><td>18.4%</td></tr><tr><td>1 year to less than 3 years</td><td>9,766</td><td>46.7%</td><td>37.4%</td></tr><tr><td>3 years to less than 5 years</td><td>834</td><td>4.0%</td><td>3.2%</td></tr><tr><td>5 years to less than 10 years</td><td>1,021</td><td>4.9%</td><td>3.9%</td></tr><tr><td>More than 10 years</td><td>20</td><td>0.1%</td><td>0.1%</td></tr>

content: text: Source: TeamLease Regtech

content: text: TABLE 29: STATES WITH MORE THAN 1,000
IMPRISONMENT CLAUSES

content: html: <tr><td>State</td><td>Number of clauses</td><td>GSDP (In Rs lakh crore)</td><td>GSDP (In $ billion)</td></tr><tr><td>Gujarat</td><td>1469</td><td>15.6</td><td>200.4</td></tr><tr><td>Punjab</td><td>1273</td><td>5.3</td><td>70.2</td></tr><tr><td>Maharashtra</td><td>1210</td><td>26.3</td><td>351.0</td></tr><tr><td>Karnataka</td><td>1175</td><td>15.4</td><td>205.9</td></tr><tr><td>Tamil Nadu</td><td>1043</td><td>16.3</td><td>217.4</td></tr>

content: text: Sources: TeamLease Regtech, and Reserve Bank of India for GSDPs
Exchange rate: Rs 75 to USD
content: text: Appendices

content: text: TABLE 35: UNION-STATE BREAKDOWN OF
IMPRISONMENT CLAUSES BY CATEGORIES

content: html: <tr><td>Category</td><td>Number of clauses in Union laws</td><td>In percent</td><td>Number of clauses in State laws</td><td>In percent</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial</td><td>529</td><td>10.1%</td><td>817</td><td>3.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Environment, Health and Safety</td><td>834</td><td>15.9%</td><td>345</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Finance & Taxation</td><td>41</td><td>0.8%</td><td>888</td><td>4.2%</td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>75</td><td>1.4%</td><td>360</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Industry Specific</td><td>2979</td><td>56.9%</td><td>1200</td><td>5.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Labour</td><td>534</td><td>10.2%</td><td>17285</td><td>82.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Secretarial</td><td>247</td><td>4.7%</td><td>0</td><td>0.0%</td></tr>

content: text: TABLE 36: THREE CASE STUDIES ON MANUFACTURING
COMPLIANCES*

content: html: <tr><td></td><td>Small</td><td>Medium</td><td>Large</td></tr><tr><td>Total Applicable Compliances</td><td>669</td><td>3,109</td><td>5,796</td></tr><tr><td>Compliances with imprisonment</td><td>461</td><td>2,172</td><td>4,085</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of imprisonment clauses</td><td>69%</td><td>70%</td><td>70%</td></tr>

content: text: * These are real data from three companies operating in the automotive components
business

content: text: TABLE 37: BREAKDOWN OF IMPRISONMENT CLAUSES IN
MANUFACTURING CASE STUDIES*

content: html: <tr><td></td><td>Small</td><td>Medium</td><td>Large</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 3 months</td><td>25</td><td>82</td><td>185</td></tr><tr><td>3 months to less than 1 year</td><td>187</td><td>699</td><td>1,220</td></tr><tr><td>1 year to less than 3 years</td><td>178</td><td>1,070</td><td>1,964</td></tr><tr><td>3 years to less than 5 years</td><td>59</td><td>245</td><td>505</td></tr><tr><td>5 years to 10 years</td><td>12</td><td>76</td><td>211</td></tr>

content: text: * In Table 36
content: text: Jailed for Doing Business

content: text: TABLE 38: THREE CASE STUDIES ON NBFC
COMPLIANCES*

content: html: <tr><td></td><td>Small</td><td>Medium</td><td>Large</td></tr><tr><td>Total applicable compliances</td><td>784</td><td>1,188</td><td>1,693</td></tr><tr><td>Compliances with imprisonment</td><td>154</td><td>362</td><td>622</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of imprisonment clauses</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td><td>37%</td></tr>

content: text: * These are real data from three NBFCs

content: text: TABLE 39: BREAKDOWN OF IMPRISONMENT CLAUSES IN
NBFC CASE STUDIES*

content: html: <tr><td>Range</td><td>Small</td><td>Mid</td><td>Large</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 3 months</td><td>10</td><td>42</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>3 months to less than 1 year</td><td>67</td><td>203</td><td>373</td></tr><tr><td>1 year to less than 3 years</td><td>50</td><td>58</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>3 years to less than 5 years</td><td>8</td><td>40</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>5 years to 10 years</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>19</td></tr>

content: text: * In table 38
content: text: LAW
LIBRARY
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

content: text: Restrictions on Land Ownership
by Foreigners in Selected
Jurisdictions

content: text: June 2023

content: text: LL File No. 2023-022255
LRA-D-PUB-002612

content: text: The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Directorate
(202) 707-5080 · law@loc.gov · http://www.law.gov
content: text: Restrictions on Land Ownership by Foreigners in
Selected Jurisdictions

content: text: Staff of the Global Legal Research Directorate

content: text: I. Introduction

content: text: This report, prepared by the research staff of the Law Library of Congress, surveys 39
jurisdictions regarding whether, and if so how, they restrict ownership of land by foreigners.1
The jurisdictions surveyed were among those with the highest gross domestic product according
to 2021 World Bank data, selected to ensure broadly representative coverage.2

content: text: We identified 10 countries that do not restrict land ownership by foreigners: Belgium, France,
Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom.

content: text: We found that the following countries do not permit foreign ownership of land, although
exceptions may apply in some cases or other rights to land may be acquired: China, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Philippines, and Thailand.

content: text: Among the other jurisdictions surveyed, some have restrictions that apply to different types of
land, including agricultural, residential, and commercial land. Other types of restriction are based
on the location of the land, such as near the border or military establishments. Some jurisdictions
restrict particular categories of foreigners from land ownership. Some require special permission
or approval for foreigners before they can acquire land.

content: text: Ownership of agricultural land by foreigners is restricted by some provinces of Canada, and by
Egypt, India (restricted for diplomatic personnel, nonresidents of Indian origin and nonresident
citizens without registration), Iran, Poland (permit required), and Russia. Argentina, Brazil, and
Turkey restrict ownership of rural or local land to a percentage of the total land of the local
jurisdiction.

content: text: Article XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) obligates members to provide
national treatment to other members, i.e., "treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its
own."3 If land ownership restrictions result in less favorable treatment of foreigners, GATS

content: text: 1 The surveyed jurisdictions are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt,
Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South
Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United
Kingdom.

content: text: 2 World Bank Databank, Gross Domestic Product 2021 (Jan. 15, 2023), https://perma.cc/GP7Y-Z8K8.

content: text: 3 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization, Annex 1B, art. XVII, 1869 U.N.T.S. 183, 33 I.L.M. 1167 (1994), https://perma.cc/Z89Y-
SEVS.

content: text: The Law Library of Congress
content: text: Restrictions on Land Ownership by Foreigners in Selected Jurisdictions

content: text: members should specify this in their schedule of specific commitments.4 Reservation of the ability
to lease or own land to nationals is one such treatment; therefore, it should be listed in the
schedule as a limitation on national treatment.5 This applies to services that the GATS covers.6

content: text: Some jurisdictions do not list foreign land ownership on their schedules, but restrictit for national
security or similar interests.7 Such jurisdictions include Australia and Finland (national interest),
Chile and Greece (border area), Russia (national security), and Spain (zones of interest to
national defense and the military). Several other jurisdictions that also restrict ownership for
national security purposes have entered restrictions on their GATS schedules. Such jurisdictions
include Argentina and Mexico (border area), Iran (sensitive areas), South Korea (military bases
and installation protection zones), Taiwan (lands within fortified and military areas and adjacent
to the national frontiers), and Turkey (designated military zones).

content: text: There are other various restrictions on foreigners' land ownership. Figure 1 below shows in
simplified format the surveyed jurisdictions that impose particular categories of restrictions. On
page 4, a color-coded map sets forth which jurisdictions permit foreign acquisition, prohibit it, or
impose restrictions. A Comparative Summary Table beginning on page 5 presents the essential
findings of our study for each jurisdiction. Lastly, the textual surveys for each jurisdiction provide
further detail.

content: text: 4 Id. art. XX.

content: text: 5 Julia Nielson & Daria Taglioni, A Quick Guide to the GATS and Mode 4, OECD, World Bank, IOM Seminar on
Trade and Migration (Nov. 12-14, 2003), at 11, https://perma.cc/B8XW-LNZ4.

content: text: 6 World Trade Organization, The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS): Objectives, Coverage and
Disciplines, Question 3, https://perma.cc/4J7Y-WAG7. It states, "[t]he GATS applies in principle to all service
sectors, with two exceptions."

content: text: 7 See GATS art. XIV General Exceptions.

content: text: The Law Library of Congress
content: text: Restrictions on Land Ownership by Foreigners in Selected Jurisdictions

content: text: Comparative Summary Table

content: html: <tr><td>Jurisdiction</td><td>GATS XVII Reservation (1994)</td><td>Foreign Ownership Permitted</td><td>Restrictions on Foreign Ownership</td><td>Foreign Ownership Reporting Requirements</td></tr><tr><td>Argentina</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Prohibition on ownership of property that contains or borders large and permanent bodies of water and of land in border security zones. Rural land can only be acquired upon certificate being granted (total percentage must not exceed 15% of the territory, in which shares of nationals of one country must not exceed 30%; maximum limit per foreigner; certain long-term residents exempted).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>Approval is needed from the Treasurer if the acquisition constitutes a "significant action," including acquiring an interest in different types of land where the monetary threshold is met for that type of land. The Treasurer may prohibit a significant action that is found to be contrary to the national interest.</td><td>Acquisitions of residential and agricultural land by foreign persons must be reported to the relevant government agency.</td></tr><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Prior authorization required with exceptions; authorization may be refused if the acquisition contradicts national public policy interests.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>None.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Acquisition of rural property by an alien individual or company, including Brazilian companies controlled by foreigners, may not exceed 50 modules; foreign ownership of rural areas may not exceed a quarter of the surface of the municipalities, and ownership</td><td></td></tr>

content: text: The Law Library of Congress
content: text: Restrictions on Land Ownership by Foreigners in Selected Jurisdictions

content: html: <tr><td>Jurisdiction</td><td>GATS XVII Reservation (1994)</td><td>Foreign Ownership Permitted</td><td>Restrictions on Foreign Ownership</td><td>Foreign Ownership Reporting Requirements</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>by persons of same nationality must not exceed 40% of the quarter.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Prohibition on ownership of residential property with exceptions; some provinces also restrict ownership, including of agricultural land.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>Prohibition on acquisition of public lands within 10 kilometers from the border and favorable military report required for acquisition of land 5 kilometers from the coast; nationals of bordering countries and legal persons with their principal place of business in one of those countries cannot obtain rights to real estate located totally or partially in the border area.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>N (2001)</td><td>N</td><td>No individuals, domestic or foreign, can privately own land. The state grants land use rights to land users for a certain number of years. Foreigners can obtain such land use rights, own residential houses and apartments, or incorporate foreign-invested enterprises to invest in real estate.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Egypt</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Prohibition on ownership of agriculture lands, land in Sinai Peninsula; otherwise, permitted to own up to two properties, up to 4,000 square meters, for residential purposes; no disposition for 5 years; approval required to acquire land in tourist areas; joint ownership with an Egyptian who has majority</td><td></td></tr>

content: text: The Law Library of Congress
content: text: Restrictions on Land Ownership by Foreigners in Selected Jurisdictions

content: html: <tr><td>Jurisdiction</td><td>GATS XVII Reservation (1994)</td><td>Foreign Ownership Permitted</td><td>Restrictions on Foreign Ownership</td><td>Foreign Ownership Reporting Requirements</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>right required to acquire desert lands. No restrictions on lands in Investment Zones, Technological Zones, or Free Zones.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>Prior approval for a foreigner's purchase of certain businesses may be required when it includes land purchase and the purchase of business or land interferes with vital interests for Finland; prior approval from the Government of Aland is required for acquisitions within the autonomous region of �land.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>None.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>None.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>Prior approval required for purchase by non-European Union and non-European Free Trade Association natural and legal persons of real estate located in border areas.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>India</td><td>N</td><td>Y</td><td>Prohibition on acquisition of land by citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, China, Iran, Nepal, and Bhutan, except for one residential property for self-occupation and one property for carrying out self- employment for long-term visa holders residing in India who are citizens of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan and belong to minority religions in those countries, subject to conditions; nonresident foreign nationals not of Indian origin, except for inheritance from a resident; and of agricultural land by diplomatic personnel,</td><td></td></tr>

content: text: The Law Library of Congress
content: text: Score
Liking
Mean
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Exposures

content: text: 6. Warning: This question concerns a politically charged event that occurred on January
18, 2019, at the Indigenous People's March in Washington, D.C. After reading this
account of what happened at the march, and viewing this video of the event, which of
the effects presented in this chapter do you think best describes this episode in our
nation's history?

content: text: 7. Think of a situation in your own life when you framed information (either wittingly or
unwittingly) in such a way that helped pre-determine an outcome. Describe the
situation and how you framed the information. Was the outcome improved or
worsened as a result of how you framed the information?

content: text: 8. After having learned about the Anchoring Effect in this chapter, do you think you will
ever fall for something like this again?

content: text: 9. When someone admonishes you "not to judge a book by its cover," or as British
management journalist Robert Heller once noted, "Never ignore a gut feeling, but never
believe that it's enough," what heuristic(s) is he unwittingly advising you to avoid using?

content: text: 10. Browse the internet for information about an effect that was not discussed in this
chapter. Can you classify this effect as a special case of a Priming or Framing Effect?
Explain.

content: text: 11. Browse the internet for a heuristic other than the Affect and Availability Heuristics
described in this chapter. Explain the heuristic.

content: text: 12. It's one thing to detect the existence of a Silo Effect and quite another to measure its

content: text: 24 ARTHUR J. CAPLAN