Polar Varieties and Efficient Real Elimination

Let $S_0$ be a smooth and compact real variety given by a reduced regular sequence of polynomials $f_1, ..., f_p$. This paper is devoted to the algorithmic problem of finding {\em efficiently} a representative point for each connected component of $S_0$ . For this purpose we exhibit explicit polynomial equations that describe the generic polar varieties of $S_0$. This leads to a procedure which solves our algorithmic problem in time that is polynomial in the (extrinsic) description length of the input equations $f_1, >..., f_p$ and in a suitably introduced, intrinsic geometric parameter, called the {\em degree} of the real interpretation of the given equation system $f_1, >..., f_p$.Comment: 32 page

Polar Varieties, Real Equation Solving and Data-Structures: The hypersurface case

In this paper we apply for the first time a new method for multivariate equation solving which was developed in \cite{gh1}, \cite{gh2}, \cite{gh3} for complex root determination to the {\em real} case. Our main result concerns the problem of finding at least one representative point for each connected component of a real compact and smooth hypersurface. The basic algorithm of \cite{gh1}, \cite{gh2}, \cite{gh3} yields a new method for symbolically solving zero-dimensional polynomial equation systems over the complex numbers. One feature of central importance of this algorithm is the use of a problem--adapted data type represented by the data structures arithmetic network and straight-line program (arithmetic circuit). The algorithm finds the complex solutions of any affine zero-dimensional equation system in non-uniform sequential time that is {\em polynomial} in the length of the input (given in straight--line program representation) and an adequately defined {\em geometric degree of the equation system}. Replacing the notion of geometric degree of the given polynomial equation system by a suitably defined {\em real (or complex) degree} of certain polar varieties associated to the input equation of the real hypersurface under consideration, we are able to find for each connected component of the hypersurface a representative point (this point will be given in a suitable encoding). The input equation is supposed to be given by a straight-line program and the (sequential time) complexity of the algorithm is polynomial in the input length and the degree of the polar varieties mentioned above.Comment: Late

Polar Varieties and Efficient Real Equation Solving: The Hypersurface Case

The objective of this paper is to show how the recently proposed method by Giusti, Heintz, Morais, Morgenstern, Pardo \cite{gihemorpar} can be applied to a case of real polynomial equation solving. Our main result concerns the problem of finding one representative point for each connected component of a real bounded smooth hypersurface. The algorithm in \cite{gihemorpar} yields a method for symbolically solving a zero-dimensional polynomial equation system in the affine (and toric) case. Its main feature is the use of adapted data structure: Arithmetical networks and straight-line programs. The algorithm solves any affine zero-dimensional equation system in non-uniform sequential time that is polynomial in the length of the input description and an adequately defined {\em affine degree} of the equation system. Replacing the affine degree of the equation system by a suitably defined {\em real degree} of certain polar varieties associated to the input equation, which describes the hypersurface under consideration, and using straight-line program codification of the input and intermediate results, we obtain a method for the problem introduced above that is polynomial in the input length and the real degree.Comment: Late

Real root finding for equivariant semi-algebraic systems

Let $R$ be a real closed field. We consider basic semi-algebraic sets defined by $n$-variate equations/inequalities of $s$ symmetric polynomials and an equivariant family of polynomials, all of them of degree bounded by $2d < n$. Such a semi-algebraic set is invariant by the action of the symmetric group. We show that such a set is either empty or it contains a point with at most $2d-1$ distinct coordinates. Combining this geometric result with efficient algorithms for real root finding (based on the critical point method), one can decide the emptiness of basic semi-algebraic sets defined by $s$ polynomials of degree $d$ in time $(sn)^{O(d)}$. This improves the state-of-the-art which is exponential in $n$. When the variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ are quantified and the coefficients of the input system depend on parameters $y_1, \ldots, y_t$, one also demonstrates that the corresponding one-block quantifier elimination problem can be solved in time $(sn)^{O(dt)}$

The new resilience of emerging and developing countries: systemic interlocking, currency swaps and geoeconomics

The vulnerability/resilience nexus that defined the interaction between advanced and developing economies in the post-WWII era is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Yet, most of the debate in the current literature is focusing on the structural constraints faced by the Emerging and Developing Countries (EDCs) and the lack of changes in the formal structures of global economic governance. This paper challenges this literature and its conclusions by focusing on the new conditions of systemic interlocking between advanced and emerging economies, and by analysing how large EDCs have built and are strengthening their economic resilience. We find that a significant redistribution of ‘policy space’ between advanced and emerging economies have taken place in the global economy. We also find that a number of seemingly technical currency swap agreements among EDCs have set in motion changes in the very structure of global trade and finance. These developments do not signify the end of EDCs’ vulnerability towards advanced economies. They signify however that the economic and geoeconomic implications of this vulnerability have changed in ways that constrain the options available to advanced economies and pose new challenges for the post-WWII economic order

Geo-additive models of Childhood Undernutrition in three Sub-Saharan African Countries

We investigate the geographical and socioeconomic determinants of childhood undernutrition in Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia, three neighboring countries in Southern Africa using the 1992 Demographic and Health Surveys. We estimate models of undernutrition jointly for the three countries to explore regional patterns of undernutrition that transcend boundaries, while allowing for country-specific interactions. We use semiparametric models to flexibly model the effects of selected so-cioeconomic covariates and spatial effects. Our spatial analysis is based on a flexible geo-additive model using the district as the geographic unit of anal-ysis, which allows to separate smooth structured spatial effects from random effect. Inference is fully Bayesian and uses recent Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. While the socioeconomic determinants generally confirm what is known in the literature, we find distinct residual spatial patterns that are not explained by the socioeconomic determinants. In particular, there appears to be a belt run-ning from Southern Tanzania to Northeastern Zambia which exhibits much worse undernutrition, even after controlling for socioeconomic effects. These effects do transcend borders between the countries, but to a varying degree. These findings have important implications for targeting policy as well as the search for left-out variables that might account for these residual spatial patterns

Risk attitudes and informal employment in a developing economy

© 2012 Bennett et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.We model an urban labour market in a developing economy, incorporating workers’ risk attitudes. Trade-offs between risk aversion and ability determine worker allocation across formal and informal wage employment, and voluntary and involuntary self employment. Greater risk of informal wage non-payment can raise or lower informal wage employment, depending on the source of risk. Informal wage employment can be reduced by increasing detection efforts or by strengthening contract enforcement for informal wage payment. As the average ability of workers rises, informal wage employment first rises, then falls. Greater demand for formal production may lead to more involuntary self employment

Constraints to the sustainability of a ‘systematised’ approach to livestock marketing amongst smallholder cattle producers in South Africa

Commercialization of smallholder agriculture in South Africa is underpinned by reforms to improve livestock off-take in communal areas and engage smallholder farmers with formal markets. To achieve this, Custom Feeding Programmes (CFPs) were established to improve the condition of communal cattle prior to their sale into formal markets and to ‘systematise’ the informal marketing of cattle in communal areas by enabling participants to achieve higher informal market prices. We evaluate the sustainability of eight CFPs located in Eastern Cape Province in terms of their ability to add value to smallholder cattle production and encourage market participation. Communities with CFPs achieved a 16.6% mean cattle off-take rate, substantially higher than in most communal systems. Furthermore, cattle sold through CFPs attained a 17% higher mean selling price than those sold through other marketing channels. However, these benefits were mainly realized by better-off farmers with larger cattle herds and greater ability to transport animals to and from CFPs. More marginalized farmers, particularly women, had low participation. CFPs also face challenges to their sustainability, including inconsistent feed and water supplies, poor infrastructure and high staff turnover. Key to enhancing participation in CFPs, will be improving the way they are supported and embedded within communities

Life below excellence: exploring the links between top-ranked universities and regional competitiveness

[EN] This paper examines interactions between the presence of top-ranked universities and other conditions that encourage regional competitiveness. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was conducted to assess the combined effect of the conditions. The analysis yields several noteworthy conclusions. First, no single condition is necessary for a region to be competitive. Second, R&D expenditure is important for regional competitiveness. Third, different configurations of conditions are sufficient for high competitiveness in different regional clusters. Furthermore, some of these configurations do not include the presence of top-ranked universities. A 'magic recipe' consists of the combination of a private research system, an inter-firm collaboration network and high levels of human capital. The analysis shows that university excellence is valuable. However, in terms of its contribution to regional development, it is not crucial and must always be contextualised. This conclusion is important for smart strategic planning of local knowledge systems.Jose-Maria Garcia-Alvarez-Coque and Francisco Mas-Verdu wish to thank Project RTI2018-093791-B-C22, funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (Spain), for supporting this research.García Alvarez-Coque, JM.; Mas Verdú, F.; Roig Tierno, H. (2021). Life below excellence: exploring the links between top-ranked universities and regional competitiveness. Studies in Higher Education. 46(2):369-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1637843S369384462Alamá-Sabater, L., Budí, V., García-Álvarez-Coque, J. M., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2019). Using mixed research approaches to understand rural depopulation. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales, 19(1), 99. doi:10.7201/earn.2019.01.06Baldacci, E., Clements, B., Gupta, S., & Cui, Q. (2008). Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries. World Development, 36(8), 1317-1341. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.08.003Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31-56. doi:10.1191/0309132504ph469oaBaumann, C., & Winzar, H. (2014). The role of secondary education in explaining competitiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 13-30. doi:10.1080/02188791.2014.924387Berger, E. S. C. (2016). Is Qualitative Comparative Analysis an Emerging Method?—Structured Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of QCA Applications in Business and Management Research. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 287-308. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27108-8_14Bjerke, L., & Johansson, S. (2015). Patterns of innovation and collaboration in small and large firms. The Annals of Regional Science, 55(1), 221-247. doi:10.1007/s00168-015-0712-yBoucher, G., Conway, C., & Van Der Meer, E. (2003). Tiers of Engagement by Universities in their Region’s Development. Regional Studies, 37(9), 887-897. doi:10.1080/0034340032000143896Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175-1187. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(4), 439-468. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbp008Camagni, R. (2017). Regional Competitiveness: Towards a Concept of Territorial Capital. Seminal Studies in Regional and Urban Economics, 115-131. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57807-1_6Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional Competitiveness and Territorial Capital: A Conceptual Approach and Empirical Evidence from the European Union. Regional Studies, 47(9), 1383-1402. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.681640Choi, J., & Lee, J. (2017). Repairing the R&D market failure: Public R&D subsidy and the composition of private R&D. Research Policy, 46(8), 1465-1478. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.009Cowan, R. (2000). The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 211-253. doi:10.1093/icc/9.2.211Cowan, R., & Zinovyeva, N. (2013). University effects on regional innovation. Research Policy, 42(3), 788-800. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.001Crilly, D. (2010). Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 694-717. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.57Domenech, J., Escamilla, R., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2016). Explaining knowledge-intensive activities from a regional perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1301-1306. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.096Duşa, A. (2008). A mathematical approach to the boolean minimization problem. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 99-113. doi:10.1007/s11135-008-9183-xDuvivier, C., Polèse, M., & Apparicio, P. (2017). The location of information technology-led new economy jobs in cities: office parks or cool neighbourhoods? Regional Studies, 52(6), 756-767. doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1322686European Commission. 2016a. European Regional Competitiveness Index. Brussels: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy. Accessed June 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/maps/regional_competitiveness/.European Commission. 2016b. Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS). Brussels: Publications Office of the EU. Accessed June 2018. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/693eaaba-de16-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-31233711.Fan, D., Li, Y., & Chen, L. (2017). Configuring innovative societies: The crossvergent role of cultural and institutional varieties. Technovation, 66-67, 43-56. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2017.05.003Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, J.-M., Mas-Verdu, F., & Sanchez García, M. (2014). Determinants of Agri-food Firms’ Participation in Public Funded Research and Development. Agribusiness, 31(3), 314-329. doi:10.1002/agr.21407García Álvarez-Coque, J. M., Mas-Verdú, F., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2016). Technological innovation versus non-technological innovation: different conditions in different regional contexts? Quality & Quantity, 51(5), 1955-1967. doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0394-2Grossman, J. H., Reid, P. P., & Morgan, R. P. (2001). The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1/2), 143-152. doi:10.1023/a:1007848631448Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial Learning: Researching the Interface between Learning and the Entrepreneurial Context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 351-371. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00089.xHarrison, J., & Turok, I. (2017). Universities, knowledge and regional development. Regional Studies, 51(7), 977-981. doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1328189Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to Live with League Tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 193-215. doi:10.1057/hep.2008.1Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2011). Creating advantage in peripheral regions: The role of publicly funded R&D centres. Research Policy, 40(6), 832-841. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.03.005Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. doi:10.1038/520429aJaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598. doi:10.2307/2118401Jaumotte, F., and N. Pain. 2005. “From Ideas to Development: The Determinants of R&D and Patenting.” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 457, OECD Publishing (NJ1).Kitson, M., Martin, R., & Tyler, P. (2004). Regional Competitiveness: An Elusive yet Key Concept? Regional Studies, 38(9), 991-999. doi:10.1080/0034340042000320816Lasagni, A. (2012). How Can External Relationships Enhance Innovation in SMEs? New Evidence for Europe*. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 310-339. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627x.2012.00355.xLee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290-300. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009Lilles, A., & Rõigas, K. (2015). How higher education institutions contribute to the growth in regions of Europe? Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 65-78. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1034264Lim, M. A. (2017). The building of weak expertise: the work of global university rankers. Higher Education, 75(3), 415-430. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0147-8Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Using Innovation Surveys for Econometric Analysis. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 1129-1155. doi:10.1016/s0169-7218(10)02010-1Isabel Maria, B. F., Rossi, F., & Geuna, A. (2013). Collaboration objectives and the location of the university partner: Evidence from the Piedmont region in Italy. Papers in Regional Science, 93, S203-S226. doi:10.1111/pirs.12054Marino, M., Lhuillery, S., Parrotta, P., & Sala, D. (2016). Additionality or crowding-out? An overall evaluation of public R&D subsidy on private R&D expenditure. Research Policy, 45(9), 1715-1730. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.009Medzihorsky, J., I. Oana, M. Quaranta, and C. Schneider. 2016. “SetMethods: Functions for Set-theoretic Multi-method Research and Advanced QCA.” R package version 2.1.Miozzo, M., Desyllas, P., Lee, H., & Miles, I. (2016). Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Research Policy, 45(7), 1337-1351. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.018Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2017). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 153-160. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029Paruolo, P., Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2012). Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176(3), 609-634. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2012.01059.xPinch, S., Henry, N., Jenkins, M., & Tallman, S. (2003). From «industrial districts» to «knowledge clusters»: a model of knowledge dissemination and competitive advantage in industrial agglomerations. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(4), 373-388. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbg019Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P., & Jones, G. A. (Eds.). (2012). Universities and Regional Development. doi:10.4324/9780203112298Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001Ragin, C. C. (2014). The Comparative Method. doi:10.1525/9780520957350Roig-Tierno, N., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F., & Llopis-Martinez, J. (2017). An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(1), 15-23. doi:10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.002Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. (2009). Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 246-266. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.36Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139004244SCImago. 2016. Scimago Institutions Ranking. Accessed June 2018. https://www.scimagoir.com.Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2008). Learning to Innovate: Building Regional Technology Development Learning Networks in Midsized Cities. European Planning Studies, 16(9), 1207-1228. doi:10.1080/09654310802401631Soete, L., B. Verspagen, and T. Ziesemer. 2017. “The Productivity Effect of Public R&D in the Netherlands (No. 021).” United Nations University-Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).Suri, T., Boozer, M. A., Ranis, G., & Stewart, F. (2011). Paths to Success: The Relationship Between Human Development and Economic Growth. World Development, 39(4), 506-522. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.08.020Thiem, A. (2014). Analyzing multilevel data with QCA: yet another straightforward procedure. Quality & Quantity, 50(1), 121-128. doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0140-6Tobiassen, A. E., & Pettersen, I. B. (2017). Exploring open innovation collaboration between SMEs and larger customers. Baltic Journal of Management, 13(1), 65-83. doi:10.1108/bjm-01-2017-0018Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6Vis, B. (2012). The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(1), 168-198. doi:10.1177/0049124112442142Wolfe, D. A. (2005). 10. The Role of Universities in Regional Development and Cluster Formation. Creating Knowledge, Strengthening Nations, 167-194. doi:10.3138/9781442673564-013World Bank. (2017). GDP Per Capita in US Dollars. World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD National Accounts Data Files. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.pcap.cd.Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188-1204. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.01