Many English-speaking Commonwealth of Nations countries that have structured their training in a neoliberal market, such as New Zealand, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, England and Ireland, have adopted national certification frameworks. They can also be taken into account in Kintzer`s typology, with people created in New Zealand and South Africa being prescriptive and more favourable to Scotland, Ireland and Australia (Young, 2005: 12) and almost voluntarily for certain sectors. Some argue that a certification framework is part of the neoliberal agenda, because it brings education together and thus contributes “to the creation of education markets by providing a common qualifying currency. This common currency, like the money of an economy, is seen as promoting increased competition between diploma providers, since all institutions recognize and reward learning in the same way” (Strathdee, 2003: 157). However, even in countries that have strongly marketed their higher education, such as New Zealand, Australia and, to a lesser extent, England, national certification frameworks are encouraged to minimize barriers to vertical and horizontal transfer and to “maximize access, flexibility and portability between different areas of education and work and different places of learning” (Young , 2003: 224). However, it is relatively unclear that national certification frameworks are meeting these goals (Young, 2005: 1). The agreement aims to reduce the environmental footprint of imaging devices – both by designing and assisting customers who make informed choices when purchasing and using the devices: as a general rule, you do not have to withhold amounts for payments you make to contractors. However, you and a contract worker (beneficiary) can enter into a voluntary agreement to withhold an amount of tax on each payment you make to him. This is a good way to help independent entrepreneurs meet their tax obligations. The correction of externalities, as discussed so far in this chapter, has focused on government intervention in private markets through regulatory approaches such as taxation, authorities and standards.
However, if the government works with objectives other than maximizing social welfare [Peltzman (1976)], there is no guarantee that state intervention will achieve social optimum. In addition, lipsey and Lancaster`s two best arguments (1956-1957) and the “double dividend” literature suggest that state intervention could reduce social welfare, even if the government`s objective is to improve well-being. It is therefore useful to consider other possible ways to achieve environmental protection. Two possibilities are voluntary environmental impact programs and the use of courts. Voluntary agreements cannot be used if the payment is already covered by another PAYG deduction category, for example. B payments to employees or under hiring agreements.