Land acquisition, investment, and development in the Lao coffee sector: Successes and failures

Despite the increasing acknowledgment of scholars and practitioners that many large-scale agricultural land acquisitions in developing countries fail or never materialize, empirical evidence about how and why they fail to date is still scarce. Too often, land deals are portrayed as straightforward investments and their success is taken for granted. Looking at the coffee sector in Laos, the authors of this article explore dimensions of the land grab debate that have not yet been sufficiently examined. Coffee concessionaires in southern Laos often fail to use all of the land granted them and fail to produce high yields on the land they do use. Thus, the authors challenge the often-assumed superiority and effectiveness of large-scale versus small-scale production, specifically the argument that they modernize agricultural production and optimize land use. They argue that examining failed investments is as important as studying successful ones for understanding the implications of the land grabbing phenomenon for social, economic, and environmental outcomes. Knowledge about the scale of “failed land deals” provides important motivation for national governments to close the gap between intentions and actual outcomes. This article engages with the current debate on quality of investment and challenges the approach of employing land concessions as a vehicle for economic development in the Lao coffee sector and in other sectors and countries.

Livelihood and Community Development: LforS learning and simulation game

Up to 15 people can participate in the game, which is supervised by a moderator. Households consisting of 1-5 people discuss options for diversification of household strategies. Aim of the game: By devising appropriate strategies, households seek to stand up to various types of events while improving their economic and social situation and, at the same time, taking account of ecological conditions. The annual General Community Meeting (GCM) provides an opportunity for households to create a general set-up at the local level that is more or less favourable to the strategies they are pursuing. The development of a community investment strategy, to be implemented by the GCM, and successful coordination between households will allow players to optimise their investments at the household level. The household who owns the most assets at the end of the game wins. Players participate very actively, as the game stimulates lively and interesting discussions. They find themselves confronted with different types of decision-making related to the reality of their daily lives. They explore different ways to model their own household strategies and discuss risks and opportunities. Reflections on the course of the game continually refer to the real-life situations of the participants.

Increasingly Rank: The Use and Misuse of Rankings in Economic Development

Debates over the merits of competing schemes for ranking metropolitan areas as hightech centers shed little light on the important policy questions that should be the core of economic development policy. There are no strong theoretical reasons for preferring one ranking system to others. Rankings often conflate different industries and ignore history, obscuring the varied and often idiosyncratic processes that drive growth in different regions. Although an occupational perspective is a useful one for examining economic activity, it is a supplement to, not a replacement for, a careful understanding of metropolitan industrial specialization. Practitioners should not put too much weight on any ranking system but instead should work to develop detailed knowledge of their region’s special economic niche and to develop relationships and strategies that build on established strengths.

What is the Role of Universities in High-tech Economic Development? The Case of Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC

This paper focuses on two regions in the United States that have emerged as high-technology regions in the absence of major research universities. The case of Portland's Silicon Forest is compared to Washington, DC. In both regions, high-technology economies grew because of industrial restructuring processes. The paper argues that in both regions other actors—such as firms and government laboratories—spurred the development of knowledge-based economies and catalysed the engagement of higher education institutions in economic development. The paper confirms and advances the triple helix model of university–government–industry relationships and posits that future studies have to examine degrees of university-region engagement.