Weakening UK food law enforcement: a risky tactic in Brexit

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) is beginning to roll out a far-reaching programme of regulatory change called Regulating Our Future (ROF). This Briefing Paper argues that ROF risks: - Making the UK’s food supply less safe by further weakening systems that are already too weak; - Undermining the ability of UK food producers to export to the EU after Brexit; - Creating irreconcilable conflicts of interests, because rather than having public officials inspect food businesses, the food businesses will be able to choose who ‘marks their homework’. Professors Erik Millstone (University of Sussex) and Tim Lang (City, University of London) provide a detailed and powerful critique of the Food Standards Agency’s proposals. They conclude that ROF represents a fundamental and detrimental shift in the role, approach and public responsibilities of the FSA and the local authority officers who are the bedrock of food safety in the UK. They also show why these unwelcome proposals are especially unwise in the context of negotiations over Brexit, when the public needs a strong, vigilant and effective FSA. The authors call for ROF to be halted pending further review by a special Parliamentary Joint Select Committee of the Health and Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committees

From knowledge to wealth : transforming Russian science and technology for a modern knowledge economy

Russia possesses a sophisticated science and technology (S&T) infrastructure (research capability, technically trained workforce, and technical research universities) which, even today, is a world leader in many fields. Despite this world class basic research capacity, Russia's exports are primarily raw materials. At a time when wealth depends to an increasing degree on knowledge, Russia does not have an effective system for converting its scientific capacity into wealth. Russia's S&T resources are isolated bureaucratically (they are deployed in the rigid hierarchical system devised in the 1920s to mobilize resources for rapid state-planned industrial development and national defense), functionally (there are few links between the supply of S&T output by research institutes and the demand for S&T by Russian or foreign enterprises), and geographically (many assets are located in formerly closed cities or isolated science/atomic cities). Overcoming these inefficiencies and adjusting the S&T system to the demands of a market economy will require a major program of institutional and sectoral reform. Part I of this paper describes the ambiguous legacy of the Soviet S&T system and the status of the Russian S&T sector after 10 years of transition. Part II describes the evolution of the Russian system of intellectual property rights protection from Soviet times to the present and argues that Russia will never develop a successful commercialization program until it clarifies the ownership of the large stock of intellectual property funded with federal budget resources. Part III outlines a comprehensive 10-point sectoral reform program to improve the efficiency of government research and development spending and link the Russian S&T system with market forces.ICT Policy and Strategies,Public Health Promotion,Scientific Research&Science Parks,Agricultural Knowledge&Information Systems,General Technology,ICT Policy and Strategies,Scientific Research&Science Parks,Science Education,Agricultural Knowledge&Information Systems,General Technology

Democratizing Innovation

The process of user-centered innovation: how it can benefit both users and manufacturers and how its emergence will bring changes in business models and in public policy. Innovation is rapidly becoming democratized. Users, aided by improvements in computer and communications technology, increasingly can develop their own new products and services. These innovating users—both individuals and firms—often freely share their innovations with others, creating user-innovation communities and a rich intellectual commons. In Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel looks closely at this emerging system of user-centered innovation. He explains why and when users find it profitable to develop new products and services for themselves, and why it often pays users to reveal their innovations freely for the use of all.The trend toward democratized innovation can be seen in software and information products—most notably in the free and open-source software movement—but also in physical products. Von Hippel's many examples of user innovation in action range from surgical equipment to surfboards to software security features. He shows that product and service development is concentrated among "lead users," who are ahead on marketplace trends and whose innovations are often commercially attractive. Von Hippel argues that manufacturers should redesign their innovation processes and that they should systematically seek out innovations developed by users. He points to businesses—the custom semiconductor industry is one example—that have learned to assist user-innovators by providing them with toolkits for developing new products. User innovation has a positive impact on social welfare, and von Hippel proposes that government policies, including R&D subsidies and tax credits, should be realigned to eliminate biases against it. The goal of a democratized user-centered innovation system, says von Hippel, is well worth striving for. An electronic version of this book is available under a Creative Commons license

Regulating Habit-Forming Technology

Tech developers, like slot machine designers, strive to maximize the user’s “time on device.” They do so by designing habit-forming products— products that draw consciously on the same behavioral design strategies that the casino industry pioneered. The predictable result is that most tech users spend more time on device than they would like, about five hours of phone time a day, while a substantial minority develop life-changing behavioral problems similar to problem gambling. Other countries have begun to regulate habit-forming tech, and American jurisdictions may soon follow suit. Several state legislatures today are considering bills to regulate “loot boxes,” a highly addictive slot-machine- like mechanic that is common in online video games. The Federal Trade Commission has also announced an investigation into the practice. As public concern mounts, it is surprisingly easy to envision consumer regulation extending beyond video games to other types of apps. Just as tobacco regulations might prohibit brightly colored packaging and fruity flavors, a social media regulation might limit the use of red notification badges or “streaks” that reward users for daily use. It is unclear how much of this regulation could survive First Amendment scrutiny; software, unlike other consumer products, is widely understood as a form of protected “expression.” But it is also unclear whether well-drawn laws to combat compulsive technology use would seriously threaten First Amendment values. At a very low cost to the expressive interests of tech companies, these laws may well enhance the quality and efficacy of online speech by mitigating distraction and promoting deliberation

Dumping - One of Those Economic Myths

Dumping is one of the most poorly understood and contentious issues in trade policy. The primary reason is that the agreed definitions of dumping are not based on a solid economic foundation. This allows antidumping measures to be used for protectionist ends and to harass trade partners. While putting antidumping measures on a sounder economic foundation in international law may be difficult given their popularity with politicians, no progress can be made until economists provide a theoretically sustainable definition of dumping and devise a set of transparent criteria for determining if dumping is occurring. This paper explains the difficulties with the current definitions of dumping and outlines an agenda for future progress.dumping, international predation, price discrimination, protectionist, International Relations/Trade,

Democratizing Innovation

The process of user-centered innovation: how it can benefit both users and manufacturers and how its emergence will bring changes in business models and in public policy.Innovation is rapidly becoming democratized. Users, aided by improvements in computer and communications technology, increasingly can develop their own new products and services. These innovating users—both individuals and firms—often freely share their innovations with others, creating user-innovation communities and a rich intellectual commons. In Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel looks closely at this emerging system of user-centered innovation. He explains why and when users find it profitable to develop new products and services for themselves, and why it often pays users to reveal their innovations freely for the use of all.The trend toward democratized innovation can be seen in software and information products—most notably in the free and open-source software movement—but also in physical products. Von Hippel's many examples of user innovation in action range from surgical equipment to surfboards to software security features. He shows that product and service development is concentrated among "lead users," who are ahead on marketplace trends and whose innovations are often commercially attractive.Von Hippel argues that manufacturers should redesign their innovation processes and that they should systematically seek out innovations developed by users. He points to businesses—the custom semiconductor industry is one example—that have learned to assist user-innovators by providing them with toolkits for developing new products. User innovation has a positive impact on social welfare, and von Hippel proposes that government policies, including R&D subsidies and tax credits, should be realigned to eliminate biases against it. The goal of a democratized user-centered innovation system, says von Hippel, is well worth striving for. An electronic version of this book is available under a Creative Commons license

Financial constraints, innovation performance, and sectoral disaggregation

How do the effects of financial constraints on innovation performance vary by sector and firm characteristics? This paper uses innovation survey data from eleven European countries to examine the heterogeneity of these effects. So far, there has been a lack of cross-country micro-level studies exploring the effects of financial constraints on innovation performance in Western Europe and only little research about the variability of such effects between the broad sectors of production and services. Our results suggest that the impact of direct measures of financial barriers differs in production and services sectors, and also by the firm’s export orientation. In particular, financial constraints appear to have more pronounced negative effects in the production sector than in the services sector. Among different types of firms, the response to financial constraints seems to be stronger for non-exporters