Structured Review of Code Clone Literature

This report presents the results of a structured review of code clone literature. The aim of the review is to assemble a conceptual model of clone-related concepts which helps us to reason about clones. This conceptual model unifies clone concepts from a wide range of literature, so that findings about clones can be compared with each other

THE GOALS AND GOVERNANCE OF THE SOCIAL INCLUSION AND COMMUNITY ACTIVATION PROGRAMME (SICAP) 2015-2017: A MIXED METHODS STUDY. ESRI RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 68 JULY 2018

The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) (2015-2017) aims at reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion and equality through local, regional and national engagement and collaboration. The three goals of the programme are; strengthening local communities, promoting lifelong learning, and helping people become more job ready. SICAP is funded and overseen by the Department of Rural and Community Development, with Pobal nominated to act as an agent of the Department with respect to national management and oversight of the programme. The Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs) are the contracting authorities that manage and administer SICAP at a local level and direct the funding to 45 Programme Implementers (PIs) covering 51 local areas or lots to implement the programme. This report is part of a broader research programme entitled ‘A Programme of Evaluation of the Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme’ aimed at informing the Department of Rural and Community Development’s overarching strategic goals and objectives in relation to SICAP and evaluating projects, actions and activities conducted as part of the programme

industrial property rights and innovation in China droits de propriete industrielle et innovation en Chine

La progression du marché en Chine depuis la politique d’ouverture menée par Deng Xiaoping est allée de pair avec la définition de règles et de lois visant à encadrer l’activité de création scientifique et technique, c'est-à-dire de règles de respect de la propriété intellectuelle. Les années 1980 et 1990 ont été celles du rattrapage en matière de propriété intellectuelle, dans la mesure où ce pays s’est doté d’un cadre juridique comparable à celui des pays industriels en adoptant l’ensemble des accords internationaux signés dans ce domaine. Notre objectif est de mettre au jour les conséquences de l’adoption de ce cadre juridique. En particulier, quels en sont les impacts sur l’innovation chinoise ? Est-ce un moyen de favoriser l’investissement local et donc de stimuler l’innovation « endogène » ? Ou bien le respect des règles internationales en matière de propriété intellectuelle et plus particulièrement industrielle (nous nous centrons ici principalement sur le rôle des brevets) a-t-il pour conséquence première de favoriser l’investissement international en Chine ? Nous soulignons dans ce document l’intérêt que constitue une approche systémique du processus d’innovation. Celle-ci découle non pas de la prise en compte d’un seul paramètre - si important soit-il (par exemple le cadre légal de la propriété intellectuelle) - pour expliquer les résultats en termes d’innovation, mais de l’ensemble du fonctionnement du système national d’innovation y compris, dans un contexte de globalisation, ses relations avec les autres systèmes nationaux d’innovation. The market-oriented policy implemented by Deng Xiaoping since the end of the 1970s has led to the determination of laws ruling scientific and technical creation, i.e intellectual property rules. During the 1980s and 1990s, China developed a legal framework of intellectual property (IP) meeting international standards. Our aim in this paper is to discuss the consequences of the implementation of this legal framework. In particular, what are the impacts on Chinese innovation? Is it, as expected by the Chinese government but also as often stressed in the literature on innovation, a way to boost domestic investment and hence endogenous innovation? Or is the implementation of these international rules favouring first and foremost foreign investment in China, as also expected by the Chinese government? This paper supports the idea of the role of a systemic approach to the innovation process as well as the weakness of a too simplistic approach that would consist in linking the IP legal framework to the results in terms of innovation.industrial property rights, innovation, China