Author Index Volume 24 2003

Authors Index

Author Index Volume 24 2003     

An adjustment process for nonconvex production economies

We prove the existence of a path of market conditions, i.e. combinations of market prices and production quantities, that links any arbitrarily chosen market condition with an equilibrium, in a general equilibrium model with possibly nonconvex production technologies based on Villar [Villar, A., 1994. Equilibrium with nonconvex production technologies. Economic Theory 4, 629–638] and Villar [Villar, A., 1999. Equilibrium and Efficiency in Production Economies, second ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin]. This existence theorem holds for any semi-algebraic version of the model and the adjustment of market conditions along the path can be given an economic interpretation as a tâtonnement process. Any such path can be approximated arbitrarily close by applying a simplicial algorithm. By restarting this algorithm in a different market condition, we may find more than one equilibrium.     

Strategies for shifting technological systems The case of the automobile system

Californian and Dutch efforts to produce electric vehicles are explored and compared. Three strategies are put forward that could turn electric vehicles from an elusive legend, a plaything, into a marketable product: technology forcing creating a market of early promises, experiments geared towards niche development and upscaling (strategic niche management), and the creation of new alliances (technological nexus) which bring technology, the market, regulation and many other factors together. These strategies deployed in the Californian and Dutch context are analysed in detail to explore their relative strengths and weaknesses and to argue in the end that a combined use of all three will increase the chances that the dominant technological system will change. The succesful workings of these strategies crucially depend on the coupling of the variation and selection processes, building blocks for any evolutionary theory of technical change. Evolutionary theory lacks understanding of these coupling processes. Building on recent insights from the sociology of technology, the authors propose a quasi-evolutionary model which underpins the analysis of suggested strategies.     

Who are Advisory Services Leaving Out? A Critical Reflection on ‘Hard to Reach’ Farmers

Although the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union has broadened its objectives to integrate social issues, several hard-to-reach groups of farmers and workers continue to be ignored by advisory services and associated policies. Connecting with these groups has a strong potential to increase the economic and social cohesion of European agricultures. We interviewed over 1,000 farmers across Europe and identified features of these groups that are often overlooked by advisory services. We critically reflected on the social cohorts omitted from advisory services and how they could be better reached; they include farm labourers, new entrants or ‘career changers’, and later adopters. We clarify the different types of advisors in the advisory landscape, distinguishing between those who are linked to or independent from sales of inputs or technologies. We make concrete recommendations about how to engage advisors with hard-to-reach groups, with approaches suited to different national contexts of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS); thus contributing to the ‘AKIS dimension of National Strategic Plans of the next Common Agricultural Policy, 2023–2027. We argue for the more effective use of advances in the social sciences through a better understanding of advice as social interaction which can bolster the inclusiveness of public policies.     

Socio-Technical Scenarios as a Tool to Improve Farm Advisory Services

This article examines the use of the socio-technical scenarios (STSc) method to explore the future needs of farmers in the adoption of more sustainable farming practices. It also examines the changes needed for advisory services to meet those identified needs. It presents the results from four STSc workshops organised as part of the H2020 AgriLink project. Workshop participants (farmers, advisors, policymakers, researchers), jointly explored future changes towards more sustainable agricultural systems paying special attention to the role of advisory services in these transitions. Despite the diversity of national contexts, common results emerged concerning both the shortcomings of the current advisory systems and directions for improvement. Participants agreed that advising on single aspects would not achieve the required systemic changes; these would require more integrated advisory systems at different levels (improved cooperation and knowledge flow), supported by more consistent policies. We indeed identified discrepancies between policy expectations and the broader innovation context. Policies should facilitate the role of advisors in supporting farmers to adopt sustainable innovations, but more often they also create barriers for such innovations. Participants’ concrete recommendations for more farmer-centered advisory services illustrate the usefulness of the STSc to explore potential solutions to key problems in contemporary farm advisory systems.     

What Can We Learn from Droppers and Non-adopters About the Role of Advice in Agricultural Innovation?

In this article we assess the diversity of sources of advice identified by 678 adopters, 295 non-adopters and 107 droppers (or dis-adopters, who have ceased or reduced the use) of agricultural innovations across 13 European countries. For most innovations, the volume and composition of advisory supports (e.g. public advisory services, farm business organisations, NGOs, research and development sector, other farmers), at the whole farm level were similar between adopters, non-adopters and droppers. However, there were significant differences in relation to specific innovations. Farmers adopting digital technologies, soil-improving cropping systems, and common management of natural resources identified more diverse sources when assessing innovations, suggesting that more diverse advisory support supported successful implementation. For new on-farm activities, non-adopters had more varied sources of advice than adopters. This demonstrates that non-adoption can be a well-informed decision. Droppers typically identified fewer sources of advice on an innovation than adopters, particularly in the later stages of the innovation process, suggesting that lack of advice impeded successful implementation. The findings suggest that public funding for advisory services could usefully target emergent gaps: to support the provision of up-to-date advice on topics to farmers who have difficulty accessing advice, and to prevent unnecessary dropping by supporting the implementation of innovations.