Conceptualizing change in the Portuguese footwear industry: regional voices and cognitive spaces of agency

Expanding national services sectors and global competition aggravate current and perceived future market pressures on traditional manufacturing industries. These perceptions of change have provoked a growing intensification of geo-political discourses on technological innovation and ‘learning’, and calls for competency in design among other professional skills. However, these political discourses on innovation and learning have paralleled public concerns with the apparent ‘growth pains’ from factory closures and subsequent increases in unemployment, and its debilitating social and economic implications for local and regional development. In this respect the following investigation sets out to conceptualize change through the complementary and differing perceptions of industry and regional actors’ experiences or narratives, linking these perceptions to their structure-determined spheres of agent-environment interactivity. It aims to determine whether agents’ differing perceptions of industry transformation can have a role in the legitimization of their interests in, and in sustaining their organizational influence over the process of industry-regional transformation. It argues that industry and regional agent perceptions are among the cognitive aspects of agent-environment interactivity that permeate agency. It stresses agents’ ability to reason and manipulate their work environments to preserve their self-regulating interests in, and task representative influence over the multi-jurisdictional space of industry-regional transformation. The contributions of this investigation suggest that agents’ varied perceptions of industry and regional change inform or compete for influence over the redirection of regional, industry and business strategies. This claim offers a greater appreciation for the reflexive and complex institutional dimensions of industry planning and development, and the political responsibility to socially just forms of regional development. It positions the outcomes of this investigation at the nexus of intensifying geo-political discourses on the efficiency and equity of territorial development in Europe.

Power, nature and neoliberalism: the political ecology of water in Chile

Since the 1990s, international water sector reforms have centred heavily on economic and market approaches. In regard to water resources management, tradable water rights have been promoted, often supported by the neoliberal model adopted in Chile. Chile's 1981 Water Code was reformed to comprise a system of water rights that could be freely traded with few restrictions. International financial institutions have embraced the Chilean model, claiming that it results in more efficient water use, and potentially fosters social and environmental benefits. However, in Chile the Water Code is deeply contested. It has been criticised for being too permissive and has produced a number of problems in practice. Moreover, attempts to modify it have become the focus of a lengthy polemic debate. This paper employs a political ecology perspective to explore the socio-environmental outcomes of water management in Chile, drawing on a case study of agriculture in the semi-arid Norte Chico. The case illustrates how large-scale farmers exert greater control over water, while peasant farmers have increasingly less access. I argue that these outcomes are facilitated by the mode of water management implemented within the framework of the Water Code. Through this preliminary examination of social equity and the environmental aspects of water resources management in Chile, I suggest that the omission of these issues from the international debates on water rights markets is a cause for concern.

Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture

Food security is one of this century’s key global challenges. By 2050 the world will require increased crop production in order to feed its predicted 9 billion people. This must be done in the face of changing consumption patterns, the impacts of climate change and the growing scarcity of water and land. Crop production methods will also have to sustain the environment, preserve natural resources and support livelihoods of farmers and rural populations around the world. There is a pressing need for the ‘sustainable intensifi cation’ of global agriculture in which yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land. Addressing the need to secure a food supply for the whole world requires an urgent international effort with a clear sense of long-term challenges and possibilities. Biological science, especially publicly funded science, must play a vital role in the sustainable intensifi cation of food crop production. The UK has a responsibility and the capacity to take a leading role in providing a range of scientifi c solutions to mitigate potential food shortages. This will require signifi cant funding of cross-disciplinary science for food security. The constraints on food crop production are well understood, but differ widely across regions. The availability of water and good soils are major limiting factors. Signifi cant losses in crop yields occur due to pests, diseases and weed competition. The effects of climate change will further exacerbate the stresses on crop plants, potentially leading to dramatic yield reductions. Maintaining and enhancing the diversity of crop genetic resources is vital to facilitate crop breeding and thereby enhance the resilience of food crop production. Addressing these constraints requires technologies and approaches that are underpinned by good science. Some of these technologies build on existing knowledge, while others are completely radical approaches, drawing on genomics and high-throughput analysis. Novel research methods have the potential to contribute to food crop production through both genetic improvement of crops and new crop and soil management practices. Genetic improvements to crops can occur through breeding or genetic modifi cation to introduce a range of desirable traits. The application of genetic methods has the potential to refi ne existing crops and provide incremental improvements. These methods also have the potential to introduce radical and highly signifi cant improvements to crops by increasing photosynthetic effi ciency, reducing the need for nitrogen or other fertilisers and unlocking some of the unrealised potential of crop genomes. The science of crop management and agricultural practice also needs to be given particular emphasis as part of a food security grand challenge. These approaches can address key constraints in existing crop varieties and can be applied widely. Current approaches to maximising production within agricultural systems are unsustainable; new methodologies that utilise all elements of the agricultural system are needed, including better soil management and enhancement and exploitation of populations of benefi cial soil microbes. Agronomy, soil science and agroecology—the relevant sciences—have been neglected in recent years. Past debates about the use of new technologies for agriculture have tended to adopt an either/or approach, emphasising the merits of particular agricultural systems or technological approaches and the downsides of others. This has been seen most obviously with respect to genetically modifi ed (GM) crops, the use of pesticides and the arguments for and against organic modes of production. These debates have failed to acknowledge that there is no technological panacea for the global challenge of sustainable and secure global food production. There will always be trade-offs and local complexities. This report considers both new crop varieties and appropriate agroecological crop and soil management practices and adopts an inclusive approach. No techniques or technologies should be ruled out. Global agriculture demands a diversity of approaches, specific to crops, localities, cultures and other circumstances. Such diversity demands that the breadth of relevant scientific enquiry is equally diverse, and that science needs to be combined with social, economic and political perspectives. In addition to supporting high-quality science, the UK needs to maintain and build its capacity to innovate, in collaboration with international and national research centres. UK scientists and agronomists have in the past played a leading role in disciplines relevant to agriculture, but training in agricultural sciences and related topics has recently suffered from a lack of policy attention and support. Agricultural extension services, connecting farmers with new innovations, have been similarly neglected in the UK and elsewhere. There is a major need to review the support for and provision of extension services, particularly in developing countries. The governance of innovation for agriculture needs to maximise opportunities for increasing production, while at the same time protecting societies, economies and the environment from negative side effects. Regulatory systems need to improve their assessment of benefits. Horizon scanning will ensure proactive consideration of technological options by governments. Assessment of benefi ts, risks and uncertainties should be seen broadly, and should include the wider impacts of new technologies and practices on economies and societies. Public and stakeholder dialogue—with NGOs, scientists and farmers in particular—needs to be a part of all governance frameworks.

Firm size and competition: a comparison of the housebuilding industries in Australia, the UK and the USA

Housebuilding is frequently viewed as an industry full of small firms. However, large firms exist in many countries. Here, a comparative analysis is made of the housebuilding industries in Australia, Britain and the USA. Housebuilding output is found to be much higher in Australia and the USA than in Britain when measured on a per capita basis. At the same time, the degree of market concentration in Australia and the USA is relatively low but in Britain it is far greater, with a few firms having quite substantial market shares. Investigation of the size distribution of the top 100 or so firms ranked by output also shows that the decline in firm size from the largest downwards is more rapid in Britain than elsewhere. The exceptionalism of the British case is put down to two principal reasons. First, the close proximity of Britain’s regions enables housebuilders to diversify successfully across different markets. The gains from such diversification are best achieved by large firms, because they can gain scale benefits in any particular market segment. Second, land shortages induced by a restrictive planning system encourage firms to takeover each other as a quick and beneficial means of acquiring land. The institutional rules of planning also make it difficult for new entrants to come in at the bottom end of the size hierarchy. In this way, concentration grows and a handful of large producers emerge. These conditions do not hold in the other two countries, so their industries are less concentrated. Given the degree of rivalry between firms over land purchases and takeovers, it is difficult to envisage them behaving in a long-term collusive manner, so that competition in British housebuilding is probably not unduly compromised by the exceptional degree of firm concentration. Reforms to lower the restrictions, improve the slow responsiveness and reduce the uncertainties associated with British planning systems’ role in housing supply are likely to greatly improve the ability of new firms to enter housebuilding and all firms’ abilities to increase output in response to rising housing demand. Such reforms would also probably lower overall housebuilding firm concentration over time.