Food justice or food sovereignty? Understanding the rise of urban food movements in the USA

As world food and fuel prices threaten expanding urban populations, there is greater need for the urban poor to have access and claims over how and where food is produced and distributed. This is especially the case in marginalized urban settings where high proportions of the population are food insecure. The global movement for food sovereignty has been one attempt to reclaim rights and participation in the food system and challenge corporate food regimes. However, given its origins from the peasant farmers' movement, La Via Campesina, food sovereignty is often considered a rural issue when increasingly its demands for fair food systems are urban in nature. Through interviews with scholars, urban food activists, non-governmental and grassroots organizations in Oakland and New Orleans in the United States of America, we examine the extent to which food sovereignty has become embedded as a concept, strategy and practice. We consider food sovereignty alongside other dominant US social movements such as food justice, and find that while many organizations do not use the language of food sovereignty explicitly, the motives behind urban food activism are similar across movements as local actors draw on elements of each in practice. Overall, however, because of the different histories, geographic contexts, and relations to state and capital, food justice and food sovereignty differ as strategies and approaches. We conclude that the US urban food sovereignty movement is limited by neoliberal structural contexts that dampen its approach and radical framework. Similarly, we see restrictions on urban food justice movements that are also operating within a broader framework of market neoliberalism. However, we find that food justice was reported as an approach more aligned with the socio-historical context in both cities, due to its origins in broader class and race struggles.

Movements in gesture interfaces

There is a mismatch between the kinds of movements used in gesture interfaces and our existing theoretical understandings of gesture. We need to re-examine the assumptions of gesture research and develop theory more suited to gesture interface design. In addition to improved theory, we need to develop ways for participants in the process of design to adapt, extend and develop theory for their own design contexts. Gesture interface designers should approach theory as a contingent resource for design actions that is responsive to the needs of the design process.

Capital Works Procurement: The Selection of a Building Procurement Method

The determination of the most appropriate procurement method for capital works projects is a challenging task for the Department of Housing and Works (DHW) and other Western Australian State Government Agencies because of the array of assessment criteria that are considered and the procurement methods that are available. A number of different procurement systems can be used to deliver capital works projects such a traditional, design and construct and management. Sub-classifications of these systems have proliferated and continue to emerge in response to market demands. The selection of an inappropriate procurement method may lead to undesirable project outcomes. To facilitate DHW in selecting an appropriate procurement method for its capital works projects, a six step procurement method selection process is presented. The characteristics of the most common forms of procurement method used in Australia are presented. Case studies where procurement methods have been used for specific types of capital works in Western Australia are offered to provide a reference point and learning opportunity for procurement method selection.

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.