HLPE Report #16 (Youth engagement and employment in Agriculture) - consultation on the scope of the report

[William Moseley]

Dear Colleagues,

As some of you may know, I sit on a scientific committee (HLPE) (
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fao.org%2Fcfs%2Fcfs-hlpe%2Fhlpe-steering-committee%2Fen%2Fdata=02%7C01%7CECONOMICGEOGRAPHY-L%40listserv.uconn.edu%7Cba13d36d006a4183908708d7a06f3cdf%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637154271929563319sdata=8lYZsUgM43i4YRZJReyN2VJ95MbsYUlNCzJdUKMP3B8%3Dreserved=0)
 that advises
the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). The CFS is a UN body that works
across the UN Rome-based agencies and assists member states with food
security and nutrition policy. While not quite analogous, the HLPE is
somewhat akin to an IPCC for food security. We oversee the writing of
reports, and summarize scientific consensus, that informs CFS policy
recommendations. We are currently scoping out our next report on "Promoting
youth engagement and employment in agriculture and food systems." We are
taking public comments until *Jan 26* on the scope and draft outline of the
report (see link below). If you have relevant expertise, this is your
chance to weigh in on what issues should be considered in the report. Feel
free to share this note with colleagues.

Many thanks,

Bill







Dear Colleagues,



I am writing to inform you that the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition (HLPE), on the request of the Committee on World
Food Security, is preparing a report on “*Promoting youth engagement and
employment in agriculture and food systems
*”.



The HLPE also invites contributions on the scope of the report, as well as
inputs on relevant articles, publications and good practices. Inputs on the
scope of the report can be submitted in English, French and Spanish at the
links below:







*Click here 

 to access
the consultation page in English
.
 Haga clic aquí

 para acceder a la
página de la consulta en español
.
 Cliquez ici

 pour accéder à la
page de la consultation en français
.*

We invite you to share this information with your professional network.






-- 

William G. Moseley
Professor of Geography
Director, Food, Agriculture & Society Program
Macalester College
1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105-1899 USA
Email: mose...@macalester.edu
Tel: (1) 651-696-6126, Fax: (1) 651-696-6116, twitter.com/WilliamGMoseley

New Special Issue of Industry & Innovation

[Industry Innovation]

The new Industry and Innovation Special Issue on Trademarks and their Role in 
Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Industrial Organization is out!
Access the new issue 
here!
Articles in Industry and Innovation 27/1-2:
Editorial
Editorial: why and when do firms trademark? Bridging perspectives from 
industrial organisation, innovation and 
entrepreneurship
By: Guest editors, Carolina Castaldi, Joern Block & Meindert J. Flikkema
Original Articles
On the price elasticity of demand for 
trademarks
By: Gaétan de Rassenfosse

Abstract: One underexplored factor directly affecting firms' use of trademarks 
relates to the fees associated with obtaining a mark. This paper provides 
econometric estimates of the fee elasticity of demand for trademark 
applications. Using a panel of monthly international trademark applications, I 
find that a 10-percent increase in fees leads to a 2.5-4.0-percent decrease in 
applications. The econometric analysis also highlights that trademark filings 
react strongly to economic activity. The results bear implications for 
literature on the value of trademarks and for the use of trademarks as 
innovation indicator. Specifically, low elasticity estimates suggest that 
trademarks provide significant economic value to their owners relative to their 
costs. However, one must exercise caution when comparing trademark numbers 
across countries to the extent that fees might differ substantially.

Articles
>From a distinctive sign to an exchangeable asset: exploring the U.S. market 
>for trademark 
>licensing
By: Edoardo Ferrucci, Maria Isabella Leone, Manuel Romagnoli & Andrea Toros

Abstract: A remarkable growth in the value of trademark licencing has been 
recently recorded. Our paper contributes to the understanding of this 
under-explored phenomenon using a dataset newly released by the USPTO. Our 
study analyses the evolution of licencing activities in the U.S. during the 
2003-2017 period, the characteristics of these trademarks and agreements, and 
certain features of the licencing parties involved. We found that licencing 
activities varied considerably during these years. They were usually signed 
between two parties only, and, on average, they involved more than one 
trademark. Excluding under-reporting effect, the analyses reveal that a large 
portion of heterogeneity in licencing activity is due to the NICE international 
classes associated with each trademark. Indeed, trademark licencing agreements 
appear to be unevenly distributed across these classes, suggesting that this 
activity and the way it is carried out is correlated with the market to which 
the licenced trademark refers.

Are two better than one? Modelling 

WG: CfP RGS-IBG on Aligning Theory and Method in Economic Geography

[Huiwen Gong]

Call for Papers RGS-IBG Annual Conference September 1-4, 2020, London, U.K.

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rgs.org%2Fresearch%2Fannual-international-conference%2Fdata=02%7C01%7CECONOMICGEOGRAPHY-L%40LISTSERV.UCONN.EDU%7Cd1f04f0fb02a4403ebeb08d79fd8d517%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637153625965230804sdata=2wdsLvJtP26zExu%2BDeBIinEYKhRoLvOoxdmi6pEvV%2BQ%3Dreserved=0

 

 

Aligning theory and method in economic geography

 

Organizers: Huiwen Gong1, Roel Rutten2, Robert Hassink1

 

1 Kiel University, Department of Geography, Kiel, Germany; email:
 g...@geographie.uni-kiel.de,
 hass...@geographie.uni-kiel.de

2 Tilburg University, School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg,
The Netherlands; email:  
r.p.j.h.rut...@uvt.nl

 

Related to a panel session on "Theorizing in Economic Geography" (organized
by Huiwen Gong & Robert Hassink), in this paper session, we discuss the
(mis)alignment of theory and method in economic geography. Economic
geography is a field vibrant in developing new topics and ideas. However,
the diversity of approaches, methods and methodologies, philosophical
foundations, and practices has led to a situation where economic geographers
are often talking past each other because researchers' (implicit)
assumptions on how social reality works and the nature of causality do not
match. As correctly observed by Barnes and Christophers (2018) in a recent
book, this phenomenon can largely be attributed to a "don't ask, and don't
tell" (ibid, p.132) culture in economic geography. In order to counter this
"don't-ask-don't-tell" culture, we argue that researchers must be explicit
about the assumptions they buy into when they are making causal claims. The
reluctance of economic geographers to explicitly align theorizing and method
creates two important problems. (1) A misalignment of (implicit) assumptions
on the nature of social reality and causality makes it very difficult for
researchers to effectively communicate their results across research
projects. (2) As argued, theorizing in economic geography is very diverse
but empirical research most often still follows the mainstream approach of
identifying net-effects of independent variable. This produces a
misalignment between the theorizing and methods within a research project.
We further observe that, in economic geography, theorizing has become a
task/interest of a small group of scholars who often fail to explain the
methodological implications of their theorizing, while much empirical work
uncritically follows mainstream, variable-based method regardless of whether
they fit the theory used.

 

Theory and method must be aligned for theory to sensibly inform empirical
research and for empirical research to sensibly inform theory development.
To achieve this alignment in economic geography and to prevent economic
geographers from "talking past each other", our discipline needs to
explicitly engage with the philosophical underpinnings of the theories and
the methods that we use. Additionally, extra care needs to be paid to the
role of the specific context and conditions in which researchers are doing
research on. Instead of following the dominant "don't ask, and don't tell"
theorizing culture, in this session, we encourage scholars to talk openly
about the methodologies and philosophies that make their work what they are,
the key concepts and notions that are used in their research, as well as to
reflect upon the way in which they theorize in general. As an example, we
point at the renewed interested in critical realism in economic geography
(Yeung 2019) and the introduction of QCA (Qualitative Comparative Analysis)
(Rutten 2019). Put differently, in order to align theory and method,
economic geography needs a discussion about the different ontologies
underlying our discipline and their epistemological implications.

 

Specifically, we welcome empirical and theoretical contributions that deal
with, but are not necessarily constrained to the following questions:

1.   What is the role of context (space-time- contingent) in theorizing
regional economic development outcomes? How do economic geographers navigate
between the divergent appeals of particularity and generality? To what
extent has the emphasis on empirical generalizations disconnected theorizing
and explanation from context? (