Governance Matters : China's Developing Western Region with a Focus on Qinghai Province

This study is about governance in contemporary China. The focus is on Qinghai Province, one of the twelve provincial-level units included in the western region development strategy launched in 2000 by the government of China. Qinghai, the subject of the case study, is not a very well-known province. Hence, this study is significant, because it provides new knowledge about the province of Qinghai, its governance and diverse challenges, and deepens one s overall knowledge regarding China. Qinghai province is one of the slowest developing regions of China. My research problem is to analyze to what extent provincial development correlates with the quality of governance. The central concept of this research is good governance. This dissertation employs a grounded theory approach while the theoretical framework of this study is built on the Three World s approach of analyzing the three main themes, namely, the environment, economic development, and cultural diversity, and to support the empirical work. Philosophical issues in the humanities and contemporary theories of governance are brought in to provide deeper understanding of governance, and to understand to what extent and how characteristics of good governance (derived from the Western canon) are combined with Chinese tradition. A qualitative research method is chosen to provide a deeper understanding of the contemporary challenges of Qinghai (and China) and to provide some insight into the role and impact of governance on provincial development. It also focuses on the Tibetan ethnic group in order to develop as full an understanding as possible about the province. The challenges faced by Qinghai concern in particular its environment, economic development, and cultural diversity, all of which are closely interrelated. The findings demonstrate that Qinghai Province is not a powerful actor, because it has weak communications with the central government and weak collaboration with its stakeholders and civil society. How Qinghai s provincial government conducts provincial development remains a key question in terms of shaping the province s future. The question is how is Qinghai s government best able to govern in a way that is beneficial for the people. This study demonstrates that this is a significant question that challenges governance everywhere, and particularly in China given the absence of democracy. This study provides the ingredients for reflection as to how provincial government can be motivated to choose to govern in a sustainable way, instead of leaning on growth factors with too little consideration about the impact on the environment and the people.

Poverty and the Environment : Investment Poverty and the Role of Assets in Generating Welfare for Farmer Households in the Province of Herrera, Panama

Köyhiä maanviljelijöitä on usein syytetty kehitysmaiden ympäristöongelmista. On väitetty, että eloonjäämistaistelu pakottaa heidät käyttämään maata ja muita luonnonvaroja lyhytnäköisesti. Harva asiaa koskeva tutkimus on kuitenkaan tukenut tätä väitettä; perheiden köyhyyden astetta ja heidän aiheuttamaansa ympäristövaikutusta ei ole kyetty kytkemään toisiinsa. Selkeyttääkseen köyhyys-ympäristö –keskustelua, Thomas Reardon ja Steven Vosti kehittivät investointiköyhyyden käsitteen. Se tunnistaa sen kenties suuren joukon maanviljelijäperheitä, jotka eivät ole köyhiä perinteisten köyhyysmittareiden mukaan, mutta joiden hyvinvointi ei ole riittävästi köyhyysrajojen yläpuolella salliakseen perheen investoida kestävämpään maankäyttöön. Reardon ja Vosti korostivat myös omaisuuden vaikutusta perheiden hyvinvointiin, ja uskoivat sen vaikuttavan tuotanto- ja investointipäätöksiin. Tässä tutkimuksessa pyritään vastaamaan kahteen kysymykseen: Miten investointiköyhyyttä voidaan ymmärtää ja mitata? Ja, mikä on viljelijäperheiden omaisuuden hyvinvointia lisäävä vaikutus? Tätä tutkimusta varten haastateltiin 402 maanviljelijäperhettä Väli-Amerikassa, Panaman tasavallan Herreran läänissä. Näiden perheiden hyvinvointia mitattiin heidän kulutuksensa mukaan, ja paikalliset köyhyysrajat laskettiin paikallisen ruoan hinnan mukaan. Herrerassa ihminen tarvitsee keskimäärin 494 dollaria vuodessa saadakseen riittävän ravinnon, tai 876 dollaria vuodessa voidakseen ravinnon lisäksi kattaa muitakin välttämättömiä menoja. Ruoka- eli äärimmäisen köyhyyden rajan alle jäi 15,4% tutkituista perheistä, ja 33,6% oli jokseenkin köyhiä, eli saavutti kyllä riittävän ravitsemuksen, muttei kyennyt kustantamaan muita perustarpeitaan. Molempien köyhyysrajojen yläpuolelle ylsi siis 51% tutkituista perheistä. Näiden köyhyysryhmien välillä on merkittäviä eroavaisuuksia ei vain perheiden varallisuuden, tulojen ja investointistrategioiden välillä, mutta myös perheiden rakenteessa, elinympäristössä ja mahdollisuuksissa saada palveluja. Investointiköyhyyden mittaaminen osoittautui haastavaksi. Herrerassa viljelijät eivät tee investointeja puhtaasti ympäristönsuojeluun, eikä maankäytön kestävyyttä muutenkaan pystytty yhdistämään perheiden hyvinvoinnin tasoon. Siksi investointiköyhyyttä etsittiin sellaisena hyvinvoinnin tasona, jonka alapuolella elävien perheiden parissa tuottavat maanparannusinvestoinnit eivät enää ole suorassa suhteessa hyvinvointiin. Tällaisia investointeja ovat mm. istutetut aidat, lannoitus ja paranneltujen laiduntyyppien viljely. Havaittiin, että jos perheen hyvinvointi putoaa alle 1000 dollarin/henkilö/vuosi, tällaiset tuottavat maanparannusinvestoinnit muuttuvat erittäin harvinaisiksi. Investointiköyhyyden raja on siis noin kaksi kertaa riittävän ravitsemuksen hinta, ja sen ylitti 42,3% tutkituista perheistä. Heille on tyypillistä, että molemmat puolisot käyvät työssä, ovat korkeasti koulutettuja ja yhteisössään aktiivisia, maatila tuottaa paremmin, tilalla kasvatetaan vaativampia kasveja, ja että he ovat kerryttäneet enemmän omaisuutta kuin investointi-köyhyyden rajan alla elävät perheet. Tässä tutkimuksessa kyseenalaistettiin yleinen oletus, että omaisuudesta olisi poikkeuksetta hyötyä viljelijäperheelle. Niinpä omaisuuden vaikutusta perheiden hyvinvointiin tutkittiin selvittämällä, mitä reittejä pitkin perheiden omistama maa, karja, koulutus ja työikäiset perheenjäsenet voisivat lisätä perheen hyvinvointia. Näiden hyvinvointi-mekanismien ajateltiin myös riippuvan monista väliin tulevista tekijöistä. Esimerkiksi koulutus voisi lisätä hyvinvointia, jos sen avulla saataisiin paremmin palkattuja töitä tai perustettaisiin yritys; mutta näihin mekanismeihin saattaa vaikuttaa vaikkapa etäisyys kaupungeista tai se, omistaako perhe ajoneuvon. Köyhimpien perheiden parissa nimenomaan koulutus olikin ainoa tutkittu omaisuuden muoto, joka edisti perheen hyvinvointia, kun taas maasta, karjasta tai työvoimasta ei ollut apua köyhyydestä nousemiseen. Varakkaampien perheiden parissa sen sijaan korkeampaa hyvinvointia tuottivat koulutuksen lisäksi myös maa ja työvoima, joskin monesta väliin tulevasta muuttujasta, kuten tuotantopanoksista riippuen. Ei siis ole automaatiota, jolla omaisuus parantaisi perheiden hyvinvointia. Vaikka rikkailla onkin yleensä enemmän karjaa kuin köyhemmillä, ei tässä aineistossa löydetty yhtään mekanismia, jota kautta karjan määrä tuottaisi korkeampaa hyvinvointia viljelijäperheille. Omaisuuden keräämisen ja hyödyntämisen strategiat myös muuttuvat hyvinvoinnin kasvaessa ja niihin vaikuttavat monet ulkoiset tekijät. Ympäristön ja köyhyyden suhde on siis edelleen epäselvä. Köyhyyden voittaminen vaatii pitkällä tähtäimellä sitä, että viljelijäperheet nousisivat investointiköyhyyden rajan yläpuolelle. Näin heillä olisi varaa alkaa kartuttaa omaisuutta ja investoida kestävämpään maankäyttöön. Tällä hetkellä kuitenkin isolle osalle herreralaisia perheitä tuo raja on kaukana tavoittamattomissa. Miten päästä yli tuhannen dollarin kulutukseen perheenjäsentä kohden, mikäli elintaso ei yllä edes riittävään ravitsemukseen? Ja sittenkin, vaikka hyvinvointi kohenisi, ei ympäristön kannalta parannuksia ole välttämättä odotettavissa, mikäli karjalaumat kasvavat ja eroosioalttiit laitumet leviävät.

Monopolising Names? : The Protection of Geographical Indications in the European Community

Marketing of goods under geographical names has always been common. Aims to prevent abuse have given rise to separate forms of legal protection for geographical indications (GIs) both nationally and internationally. The European Community (EC) has also gradually enacted its own legal regime to protect geographical indications. The legal protection of GIs has traditionally been based on the idea that geographical origin endows a product exclusive qualities and characteristics. In today s world we are able to replicate almost any prod-uct anywhere, including its qualities and characteristics. One would think that this would preclude protec-tion from most geographical names, yet the number of geographical indications seems to be rising. GIs are no longer what they used to be. In the EC it is no longer required that a product is endowed exclusive characteristics by its geographical origin as long as consumers associate the product with a certain geo-graphical origin. This departure from the traditional protection of GIs is based on the premise that a geographical name extends beyond and exists apart from the product and therefore deserves protection itself. The thesis tries to clearly articulate the underlying reasons, justifications, principles and policies behind the protection of GIs in the EC and then scrutinise the scope and shape of the GI system in the light of its own justifications. The essential questions it attempts to aswer are (1) What is the basis and criteria for granting GI rights? (2) What is the scope of protection afforded to GIs? and (3) Are these both justified in the light of the functions and policies underlying granting and protecting of GIs? Despite the differences, the actual functions of GIs are in many ways identical to those of trade marks. Geographical indications have a limited role as source and quality indicators in allowing consumers to make informed and efficient choices in the market place. In the EC this role is undermined by allowing able room and discretion for uses that are arbitrary. Nevertheless, generic GIs are unable to play this role. The traditional basis for justifying legal protection seems implausible in most case. Qualities and charac-teristics are more likely to be related to transportable skill and manufacturing methods than the actual geographical location of production. Geographical indications are also incapable of protecting culture from market-induced changes. Protection against genericness, against any misuse, imitation and evocation as well as against exploiting the reputation of a GI seem to be there to protect the GI itself. Expanding or strengthening the already existing GI protection or using it to protect generic GIs cannot be justified with arguments on terroir or culture. The conclusion of the writer is that GIs themselves merit protection only in extremely rare cases and usually only the source and origin function of GIs should be protected. The approach should not be any different from one taken in trade mark law. GI protection should not be used as a means to mo-nopolise names. At the end of the day, the scope of GI protection is nevertheless a policy issue.

The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources: The Role of Databases and Registers

"The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources: The Role of Databases and Registers" ABSTRACT Yovana Reyes Tagle The misappropriation of TK has sparked a search for national and international laws to govern the use of indigenous peoples knowledge and protection against its commercial exploitation. There is a widespread perception that biopiracy or illegal access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (TK) continues despite national and regional efforts to address this concern. The purpose of this research is to address the question of how documentation of TK through databases and registers could protect TK, in light of indigenous peoples increasing demands to control their knowledge and benefit from its use. Throughout the international debate over the protection of TK, various options have been brought up and discussed. At its core, the discussion over the legal protection of TK comes down to these issues: 1) The doctrinal question: What is protection of TK? 2) The methodological question: How can protection of TK be achieved? 3) The legal question: What should be protected? And 4) The policy questions: Who has rights and how should they be implemented? What kind of rights should indigenous peoples have over their TK? What are the central concerns the TK databases want to solve? The acceptance of TK databases and registers may bring with it both opportunities and dangers. How can the rights of indigenous peoples over their documented knowledge be assured? Documentation of TK was envisaged as a means to protect TK, but there are concerns about how documented TK can be protected from misappropriation. The methodology used in this research seeks to contribute to the understanding of the protection of TK. The steps taken in this research attempt to describe and to explain a) what has been done to protect TK through databases and registers, b) how this protection is taking place, and c) why the establishment of TK databases can or cannot be useful for the protection of TK. The selected case studies (Peru and Venezuela) seek to illustrate the complexity and multidisciplinary nature of the establishment of TK databases, which entail not only legal but also political, socio-economic and cultural issues. The study offers some conclusions and recommendations that have emerged after reviewing the national experiences, international instruments, work of international organizations, and indigenous peoples perspectives. This thesis concludes that if TK is to be protected from disclosure and unauthorized use, confidential databases are required. Finally, the TK database strategy needs to be strengthened by the legal protection of the TK itself.

When sharing becomes a liability: An intellectual capital approach to describing the dichotomy of knowledge protection versus sharing in intra- and interorganizational relationships

The tension created when companies are collaborating with competitors – sometimes termed co-opetition - has been subject of research within the network approach. As companies are collaborating with competitors, they need to simultaneously share and protect knowledge. The opportunistic behavior and learning intent of the partner may be underestimated, and collaboration may involve significant risks of loss of competitive edge. Contrastingly, the central tenet within the Intellectual Capital approach is that knowledge grows as it flows. The person sharing does not lose the knowledge and therefore knowledge has doubled from a company’s point of view. Value is created through the interplay of knowledge flows between and within three forms of intellectual capital: human, structural and relational capital. These are the points of departure for the research conducted in this thesis. The thesis investigates the tension between collaboration and competition through an Intellectual Capital lens, by identifying the actions taken to share and protect knowledge in interorganizational collaborative relationships. More specifically, it explores the tension in knowledge flows aimed at protecting and sharing knowledge, and their effect on the value creation of a company. It is assumed, that as two companies work closely together, the collaborative relationship becomes intertwined between the two partners and the intellectual capital flows of both companies are affected. The research finds that companies commonly protect knowledge also in close and long-term collaborative relationships. The knowledge flows identified are both collaborative and protective, with the result that they sometimes are counteracting and neutralize each other. The thesis contributes to the intellectual capital approach by expanding the understanding of knowledge protection in interorganizational relationships in three ways. First, departing from the research on co-opetition it shifts the focus from the internal view of the company as a repository of intellectual capital onto the collaborative relationships between competing companies. Second, instead of the traditional collaborative and sharing point of departure, it takes a competitive and protective perspective. Third, it identifies the intellectual capital flows as assets or liabilities depending on their effect on the value creation of the company. The actions taken to protect knowledge in an interorganizational relationship may decrease the value created in the company, which would make them liabilities.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.