Group items tagged

Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin About the Author Search CEE Home | CEE | 2nd edition | Tragedy of the Commons In 1974 the general public got a graphic illustration of the "tragedy of the commons" in satellite photos of the earth. Pictures of northern Africa showed an irregular dark patch 390 square miles in area. Ground-level investigation revealed a fenced area inside of which there was plenty of grass. Outside, the ground cover had been devastated. The explanation was simple. The fenced area was private property, subdivided into five portions. Each year the owners moved their animals to a new section. Fallow periods of four years gave the pastures time to recover from the grazing. The owners did this because they had an incentive to take care of their land. But no one owned the land outside the ranch. It was open to nomads and their herds. Though knowing nothing of Karl Marx, the herdsmen followed his famous advice of 1875: "To each according to his needs." Their needs were uncontrolled and grew with the increase in the number of animals. But supply was governed by nature and decreased drastically during the drought of the early 1970s. The herds exceeded the natural "carrying capacity" of their environment, soil was compacted and eroded, and "weedy" plants, unfit for cattle consumption, replaced good plants. Many cattle died, and so did humans. The rational explanation for such ruin was given more than 170 years ago. In 1832 William Forster Lloyd, a political economist at Oxford University, looking at the recurring devastation of common (i.e., not privately owned) pastures in England, asked: "Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures?" Lloyd's answer assumed that each human exploiter of the common was guided by self-interest. At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himsel

Abstract This paper combines insights from different streams of literature to develop a more comprehensive framework for the analysis of knowledge transfer via value chain relationships. We integrate the existing literature in three ways. First, we consider value chain relationships as a multi-facet process of interaction between buyers and suppliers, involving different modes of knowledge transmission and development. Second, we assess whether and to what extent value chain relationships are associated with the presence of multinationals and with their embeddedness in the host economy. Third, we take into account the capabilities of local firms to handle the technology as a factor influencing knowledge transfer through value chain relationships. Using data on 1385 firms active in Thailand in 2001-2003, we apply a multinomial logit model to test how the nature and intensity of multinational presence and the competencies of local firms affect the organization of international knowledge transfer. We find that knowledge intensive relationships, which are characterized by a significant transmission of technical and organizational competencies along the value chains, are positively associated with the presence of global buyers in the local market, with the efforts of MNCs to adapt technology to local contexts, and with the technical capabilities of domestic firms. By contrast, the age of subsidiaries and the share of inputs purchased locally appear to increase the likelihood of value chain relationships with a lower technological profile. Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. Previous literature 3. An integrated framework for the analysis of value chains and knowledge transfer 4. Data and variable specification 4.1. Sample and sources 4.2. Why Thailand 4.3. Variable description 5. Empirical analysis 5.1. Empirical model 5.2. Discussion of results 5.2.1. Multinational presence (SUB) 5.2.2. Multinational embeddedness 5.2.3. Domestic firms' capacity "to handle the tech

This book explores the economic impact of supermarkets on food supply chains in developing countries, with particular emphasis on the generation/displacement of employment, the (re)-distribution of benefits along the food chain and the role of government is attracting, facilitating and regulating the growth of supermarkets in South America, Africa and Asia. Aimed primarily at academics but will appeal to practitioners in developing countries, civil servants, policy-makers and NGOs. The internationalization of food retailing and manufacturing that has swept through the agri-food system in industrialised countries is now moving into middle- and low-income countries with large rural populations, causing significant institutional changes that affect small producer agriculture and the livelihoods of rural communities the world over. Farmers and policy-makers are struggling to keep up with the wave of new demands being made on their supply chains by food manufacturers and retailers. In the process, new questions and challenges are arising: Can small-scale farmers organize to meet the demands of corporate giants? Should governments liberalize Foreign Direct Investment in the retail sector and expose numerous small shops to competition from multinationals? Can distribution systems be adapted to make markets work better for the poor? This book offers a contemporary look at what happens when the modernisation of food supply chains comes face to face with the livelihoods of rural and poor people. The authors are drawn from eighteen countries participating in the 'Regoverning Markets' programme, which aims to not only improve our understanding of the way modernization and re-structuring of food supply chains is affecting food production and distribution systems, but also identify best-practice in involving small-scale producers in supermarket supply chains, and ascertain the barriers to inclusion which need to be removed. Contents: Part One The Economic and Policy Context: The

Technology alliances create market development rights that are shared between partners in an alliance relative to codeveloped product technology. Alliance partners will often manage the shared market development rights in a cooperative manner by forming an agreement in which one partner (i.e., the licensor) licenses its market development rights to the other partner in the alliance (i.e., the licensee). The real options and bargaining power literatures provide opposing recommendations regarding whether a licensor creates greater shareholder value by licensing its market development rights to the licensee on a more or less restrictive basis. Empirical analysis of technology alliance contracts reveals that the restrictiveness by which a licensor should license its market development rights to a licensee depends on the licensee's strategic marketing emphasis. Specifically, a licensee will create greater value by following a more restrictive distribution strategy when its partner's marketing strategy emphasizes value creation. Alternatively, a licensee will create greater value when its partner's marketing strategy emphasizes value appropriation by following a less restrictive distribution strategy. From a theoretical perspective, the paper's findings provide early evidence regarding the contribution of marketing strategy toward value creation in technology alliances and help resolve the differing expectations offered by the real options and bargaining power literatures. Managerially, the paper identifies an alliance partner's strategic marketing emphasis as a hitherto unrecognized factor determining when managers should follow a more or less restrictive distribution strategy when licensing marketing development rights within technology alliances

"After almost fifteen years in the laboratory and in the test plots, bioengineered crops arrived to the market in the mid-1990s. Adoption was rapid and widespread. In 1996, less than 4 million acres in six countries were planted with bioengineered plants. By 2001, worldwide adoption had expanded to more than 115 million acres." The foretelling of a scientific revolution has persistently raised expectations on the potential of agrobiotechnology, and first-generation agrobiotechnologies have had to confront such expectations in the field and in the market. The Economics and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global Perspective explains how well they have fared. It brings together leading authors from around the world who have analyzed the production, environmental and economic impacts of first generation agrobiotechnologies. By pooling experiences across various countries, time periods, crops, and traits this global panel synthesizes a complete picture of the impacts of first generation agrobiotechnologies. The Economics and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global Perspective offers this assessment, accounting for the full range of differences in geography, weather, pests, farm structures and institutions that had not been completed previously, and answers these important questions: *What were the factors driving the widespread adoption of these first generation agrobiotechnologies? *What were their economic and environmental impacts? *How were such impacts distributed among innovators and adopters, developed and developing countries, exporters and importers, domestic and foreign consumers? *How were such impacts and their distribution affected by market structures and government policies?

Abstract In Varieties of Capitalism; The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Peter A. Hall and David Soskice (H&S) argue that technological specialization patterns are largely determined by the prevailing "variety of capitalism". They hypothesize that "liberal market economies" (LMEs) specialize in radical innovation, while "coordinated market economies" (CMEs) focus more on incremental innovation. Mark Zachary Taylor [Taylor, M.Z., 2004. Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism's theory of technological innovation. International Organization 58, 601-631.] convincingly argued that Hall and Soskice's empirical test is fundamentally flawed and proposed a more appropriate test of their conjecture. He rejected the varieties of capitalism explanation of innovation patterns. We extend and refine Taylor's analysis, using a broader set of radicality indicators and making industry-level comparisons. Our results indicate that Hall and Soskice's conjecture cannot be upheld as a general rule, but that it survives closer scrutiny for a substantial number of industries and an important dimension of radicality. Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. Innovation in liberal and coordinated market economies 3. Tests based on patent citation indicators 3.1. Indicators of radicality 3.2. Construction of radicality quantiles 3.3. Analytical techniques 4. Data issues 5. Empirical results 5.1. Revealed Comparative Technological Advantages 5.2. Histograms for radicality distributions 5.3. Statistical tests on equality of distributions 6. Conclusions Acknowledgements Appendix A. Appendix References

Intellectual Property Rights And Concentration In Agricultural Biotechnology William Lesser Cornell University AgBioForum Fall98 v.1, n.2 The relationships between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and structural change are examined in this paper. Intellectual property rights are a complex, multifaceted area and one in which corporate strategies are poorly understood. Nevertheless, it is argued here that IPRs can affect firm entry, can make vertical integration in downstream industries more or less necessary, and can create financial incentives for downstream mergers and acquisitions. Hence, IPRs can have significant structural impacts. Key words: intellectual property rights; agrobiotechnology; industry structure; research and development (R&D) The later 1990s have been a tumultuous time for merger and acquisition activity among firms involved in agricultural biotechnology. By the end of the third quarter of 1998, Monsanto alone had been involved in 18 acquisitions and had itself agreed and then reneged on a merger with American Home Products. In addition, Monsanto completed overseas acquisitions worth a total of $7.3 billion over two years. Novartis was formed by the merging of Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy, while DuPont chose to enter the market through joint ventures; a total of 20 joint ventures valued at over $5 billion (Moore, 1998). These mergers have contributed greatly to a restructuring of the seed industry. Most notably, Monsanto controlled up to 40 percent of seed for the 1998 United States (U.S.) soybean crop and, if approved, full acquisition of Delta & Pine Land will give Monsanto ownership of at least 80 percent of the U.S. cotton seed industry (Kilman & Warren, 1998). This is not the only incidence of major acquisition activity, a previous one occurred about 20 years earlier. Butler and Marion (1985) list 27 mergers during the period 1978-80. The 1980 date is pivotal as it marks some strengthening amendments to the United States Plant Variety Prot

his book analyses the gradual shift in the distribution of power in agri-food supply chains, away from the manufacturers of branded food products to the global supermarket chains such as Wal-Mart and Tesco. This transformation has had a profound effect on the food we eat, together with the ways in which food is produced, processed and marketed. The authors assess the causes and consequences of this transformation, and evaluate theimpacts along the whole supply chain. The book considers a variety of theoretical and cultural approaches to the analysis of change in the organization and management of the agri-food supply chain, and presents a series of studies focusing upon the effects of changes in Europe, North America and less developed countries. The impacts on farmers and workers, and implications for the environment, are also considered. The contested nature of these changes suggests a number of possible future scenarios for the global agri-food system, which are also analysed and evaluated.This book will be of great interest to postgraduate and undergraduate students in business studies, sociology, politics, geography, and cultural studies. Academic researchers and teachers, and policy mak

This book analyses the gradual shift in the distribution of power in agri-food supply chains, away from the manufacturers of branded food products to the global supermarket chains such as Wal-Mart and Tesco. This transformation has had a profound effect on the food we eat, together with the ways in which food is produced, processed and marketed. The authors assess the causes and consequences of this transformation, and evaluate theimpacts along the whole supply chain. The book considers a variety of theoretical and cultural approaches to the analysis of change in the organization and management of the agri-food supply chain, and presents a series of studies focusing upon the effects of changes in Europe, North America and less developed countries. The impacts on farmers and workers, and implications for the environment, are also considered. The contested nature of these changes suggests a number of possible future scenarios for the global agri-food system, which are also analysed and evaluated.This book will be of great interest to postgraduate and undergraduate students in business studies, sociology, politics, geography, and cultural studies. Academic researchers and teachers, and policy makers and researchers in business, government and industry will also find much of interest.

Corporate appropriation of genetic resources, development and deployment of transgenic varieties, and the global imposition of intellectual property rights are now widely recognized as moments of accumulation by dispossession. Though robust and globally distributed, opposition to such processes have been largely defensive in orientation, and even accommodationist in demands for the development of market mechanisms for compensating those from whom germplasm is being collected. A more radical stance founded on legal and operational mechanisms drawn from the open-source software movement could not only function to impede processes of dispossession, but might actually facilitate the repossession of 'seed sovereignty'. Implementation of 'biological open-source' arrangements could plausibly undergird the creation of a protected commons populated by farmers and plant breeders whose materials would be freely available and widely exchanged, but would be protected from appropriation by those who would monopolize them.

Water resource management is of paramount importance in agricultural development. Sustained socioeconomic development in countries with irrigated agriculture could be limited by water availability and deterioration in water quality. Consequently, any effort made to improve water use in irrigation practices will have a marked effect on sustainable agriculture and on conservation of soil and water resources. Problems associated with irrigated agriculture have been attributed to poor water management due to lack of knowledge of soil-plant-atmosphere relations, inadequate form of water application, hydrochemical relations triggered by irrigation, and soil's microbiological surroundings. Optimal design and selection of irrigation systems permit high efficiencies and uniform distribution of the applied water. Advanced planning and management of water is needed to ensure a sustainable agricultural process with optimal crop production, considering physical, environmental, financial, and technological restrictions. In addition, drainage techniques have also been developed, allowing removal of excess water from the soil profile. However, there is still a need to optimize water resource use and management to maintain sustainable irrigated agriculture considering water demand, water quality, economic evaluation of water, and decision support systems.

THE ECONOMICS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Innovation is acknowledged to be a multidimensional and complex process. Thus, traditional research and development (R&D) expenditures capture only a portion of the sources of and activities involved in innovation. Innovation investment includes: a) basic research; b) product development; c) adoption of new production techniques and technologies; d) organizational change; e) distribution and market changes; f) production organization and access to production factors; and g) training and the development of new skills. Traditional in-house R&D investment is being complemented by external sources of innovation and new knowledge. Recent contributions in the economics of knowledge and innovation highlight that innovation is a cooperative and collective process. Collaboration between firms, and between firms and universities, R&D centres and technology transfer centres is a strategy aimed at the sharing of knowledge and competencies, and obtaining the benefits of technological complementarities. Innovation is rarely the result of individual firm efforts; it generally emerges from the interactions among local firms and institutions within a network of innovators. This research is aimed at identifying, understanding and classifying the different ways firms innovate, distinguishing between internal and external sources. Special emphasis is put on understanding the multiple organizational forms involved in innovation and the problems encountered by economic agents and their organizations in acquiring and coordinating their innovative capabilities. The theoretical framework developed is tested on the automotive industry. Recent publications

Special Issue "Renewable Agriculture" Quicklinks Special Issue Editors Published Papers Special Issue Information Keywords Planned Papers A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 October 2009) Special Issue Editor Guest Editor Dr. Stephen S. Jones Director, Northwestern Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Mount Vernon, Washington 98273, USA E-Mail: joness@wsu.edu Published Papers Click here to see a list of 19 papers that have been published in this special issue. Special Issue Information Dear Colleagues, For centuries the perceived need for an immediate and dramatic increase in agricultural production has been a theme throughout the developed world. But only very recently, and with less urgency, has society recognized the need for the true sustainability of agricultural production. For long-term sustainability, agriculture must have the capacity for renewal. Even the most basic forms of agriculture require an input of energy, this in essence is what defines the system as agricultural. Starting with human and animal labor, energy inputs have developed into an industrial system using fertilizers, water, seed, pest control, and other products often brought in from off the farm. While these products may increase production, for the most part they are non-renewable, require vast amounts of fuel to produce and transport, are costly, and may harm the native organisms and environment. Additionally, most seed in industrial agriculture is non-renewable due to legal and genetic mechanisms that make it problematic for farmers to save and replant what they have grown on their farms. Is a renewable agriculture with a high level of productivity possible? What research is underway to test the robustness of current systems when measured against a standard of true long-term sustainability? Stephen S. Jones, Ph. D. Guest Editor   Submission Information All papers should be submitted to

ARE 242 Spring 2005 Course Syllabus   Gordon Rausser Tuesdays and Thursdays, 12:30-2:00 201 Giannini Hall     Class Date Reading Assignment Tuesday January 18 Rausser, G.C. and R.E. Goodhue. "Public Policy: Its Many Analytical Dimensions," in Handbook of Agricultural Economics, B. Gardner and G. Rausser (eds.). Volume 2, Chapter 39, Elsevier North Holland, 2002.   Thursday January 20 Alston, J.M. and J.S. James. "The Incidence of Agricultural Policy," in Handbook of Agricultural Economics, B. Gardner and G. Rausser (eds.). Volume 2, Chapter 33, Elsevier North Holland, 2002.   Chambers, R.G., "The incidence of agricultural policies," Journal of Public Economics 57, (1995) 317-335.   Floyd, J.E. "The Effects of Farm Price Supports on the Returns to Land and Labor in Agriculture." Journal of Political Economy 73 (1965), p. 148-158.   Tuesday January 25 Baylis, K., G. Rausser, and L. Simon, "Agri-Environmental Program in the United States and European Union," in Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: Where Are We Heading?," G. Anania, M.E. Bohman, C.A. Carter, and A.F. McCalla (eds.) Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004.   Glebe, T.W. "Multifunctionality: How "Green" is the "European Model of Agriculture"? Environmental Economics, Resource Economics and Agricultural Policy Research Group, Discussion Paper 01-2003.   Swinbank, A. "Multifunctionality: A European Euphemism for Protection?" Presented at the FWAG Conference: Multifunctional Agriculture-A European Model, Stoneleigh, UK, November 29, 2001.   Thursday January 27 Hodge, I. "Agri-environmental Relationships and the Choice of Policy Mechanism," The World Economy, 26 (5), May, 2003, 705-725.   Blandford, D. and R.N. Boisvert, "Multifunctional Agriculture-A View from the United States," Plenary paper presented at the 90th EAAE Seminar: Multifunctional Agriculture, Policies and Markets: Understanding the Critical Linkage; Rennes, France, October 28-29, 200