Biotechnological developments, socio-technical processes and materiality : the affordances and constraints of ‘social innovation'

Peer reviewedPreprin

Why there are fairer ways to reform in France.

No abstract is available for this item.

Aid, Volatility and Growth Again: When Aid Volatility Matters and When It Does Not

In previous papers we have argued that aid is likely to mitigate the negative effects of external shocks on economic growth (i.e., aid is more effective in countries that are more vulnerable to external shocks). Recently an important debate has emerged about the possible negative effects of aid volatility itself. However, the cushioning effect of aid may involve some volatility in aid flows, which then is not necessarily negative for growth. In this paper we examine to what extent the time profile of aid disbursements may contribute to an increase or a decrease of aid effectiveness. We first show that aid, even if volatile, is not clearly as procyclical as often argued, and, even if procyclical, is not necessarily destabilizing. We measure aid volatility by several methods and assess procyclicality of aid with respect to exports, thus departing from previous literature, which usually assesses procyclicality of aid with respect to national income or fiscal receipts. The stabilizing/destabilizing nature of aid is measured by the difference in the volatility of exports and the volatility of the aid plus exports flows. Then, in order to take into account the diversity of shocks to which aid can respond, we consider the effect of aid on income volatility and again find that aid is making growth more stable, while its volatility reduces this effect. Finally, we find evidence through growth regressions that the higher effectiveness of aid in vulnerable countries is to a large extent due to its stabilizing effect.aid, shocks, stability, growth

Aid, Volatility and Growth Again. When Aid Volatility Matters and When it Does Not

In previous papers we have argued that aid is likely to mitigate the negative effects of external shocks on economic growth (i.e. that aid is more effective in countries which are more vulnerable to external shocks). Recently an important debate has emerged about the possible negative effects of aid volatility itself. However, the cushioning effect of aid may involve some volatility in aid flows, which then is not necessarily negative for growth. In this paper we examine to what extent the time profile of aid disbursements may contribute to an increase or a decrease of aid effectiveness. We first show that aid, even if volatile, is not clearly as pro-cyclical as often argued, and, even if pro-cyclical, is not necessarily destabilizing. We measure aid volatility by several methods and assess pro-cyclicality of aid with respect to exports, thus departing from previous literature, which usually assess pro-cyclicality of aid with respect to national income or fiscal receipts. The stabilizing/destabilizing nature of aid is measured by the difference in the volatility of exports and the volatility of the aid plus exports flows. Then, in order to take into account the diversity of shocks to which aid can respond, we consider the effect of aid on income volatility and again find that aid is making growth more stable, while its volatility reduces this effect. We finally evidence through growth regressions that the higher effectiveness of aid in vulnerable countries is to a large extent due to its stabilizing effect.cerdi

Aid, Volatility and Growth,with special reference to Africa

In two previous papers we have argued that aid is likely to mitigate the negative effects of external shocks on economic growth (i.e. that aid is more effective in countries which are more vulnerable to external shocks). Recently an important debate has emerged about the possible negative effects of aid volatility itself. However, the cushioning effect of aid may involve some volatility in aid flows, hence not necessarily negative for growth. In this paper we examine to what extent the time profile of aid disbursements may contribute to an increase or a decrease of aid effectiveness in Africa. We first show that aid, even if volatile, is not clearly as pro-cyclical as often argued, and that, even if pro-cyclical, is not necessarily destabilizing. We measure aid volatility by two methods and assess pro-cyclicality of aid with respect to exports, thus departing from previous literature, which usually assess pro-cyclicality of aid with respect to national income or fiscal receipts. The stabilizing/destabilizing nature of aid is measured by the difference in the volatility of aid and the volatility of the a aid plus exports. We then evidence through growth regressions that the higher effectiveness of aid in vulnerable countries is to a large extent due to a stabilizing effect. Finally we consider the implications of this effect for income volatility.

Aid and Growth Revisited: Policy, Economic Vulnerability and Political Instability

This paper revisits the relationship between aid and growth, adding new assumptions to the standard Burnside-Dollar model, where aid effectiveness depends only on policy: 1) policy itself depends on aid, which involves a dynamic formulation of the standard model, 2) aid effectiveness (positively) depends on structural economic vulnerability, 3) it depends (negatively) on political instability. An augmented model including these assumptions is estimated on 5-year subperiods from 1965 to 1999 for 59 developing countries, using the Arellano-Bond GMM estimator and new composite indicators of policy, economic vulnerability, political instability. None of the previous assumptions is rejected. It follows that an "efficient" allocation of aid has to consider not only the quality of the present policy, but also its potential improvement, the economic vulnerability faced by the recipient country (more aid needed), and its political instability as well (aid less effective).socio-political instability., Economic vulnerability, economic policy, aid effectiveness

Aid and Performance: A Reassessment

Cet article compare deux conceptions relatives à l'efficacité de l'aide et à son allocation. La première, qui correspond au nouveau paradigme de l'aide, soutient que l'aide n'est efficace que si la politique économique des pays receveurs est bonne. Selon la seconde, présentée ici, l'efficacité de l'aide dépend de l'environnement externe et climatique (naturel), meilleur est cet environnement (ou moins le pays est vulnérable) moins l'aide est efficace. Les tests économétriques transversaux relatifs à des taux de croissance empilés sur deux périodes de douze ans donnent clairement l'avantage à la seconde hypothèse. Toutefois, les deux vues peuvent être conciliées dans le principe d'une allocation de l'aide fondée sur les performances, à condition de définir celles-ci comme les résultats économiques ajustés pour l'impact de l'environnement. Dans cet esprit, plusieurs mesures de performances sont à leur tour comparées. Le principe énoncé conduit à accorder plus d'aide si l'environnement est mauvais, pour une politique donnée, ou/et si la politique est bonne (pour un environnement donné).

Strategic HRM and Organizational Behavior: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis

[Excerpt] A few trends have emerged in the field of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) over the past few years. First, and most obviously, has been the extensive effort to demonstrate a link between HRM practices and firm performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996). Researchers such as Huselid (1995), MacDuffie (1995), Delery and Doty (1996), and Guthrie (2000) have published empirical studies showing a statistically significant linkage between HRM practices and some measures of organizational performance. A second trend has been to try to understand the mechanisms through which this relationship takes place. Authors such as Becker & Gerhart, (1996), Dyer and Reeves (1995), Guest, (1997) and Wright and Gardner (2003), have all called for research that uncovers some of the mediating relationships that must exist between the HRM practices and organizational performance. A final trend has been the recent interest in taking a multi-level approach to understanding SHRM. Wright and Boswell (2001) reviewed the SHRM literature and categorized this research as being differentiated along one dimension representing whether the focus was on single or multiple practices, and along a second dimension dealing with the unit of analysis, specifically the individual versus the group or organization. Ostroff and Bowen (2000) and more recently Bowen and Ostroff (2004) have developed the most extensive multi-level model of SHRM to date. Their theoretical approach argues that HR practices serve as communications mechanism signaling employees to engage in certain behaviors; relying on communications theory they contend that different aspects of HRM systems impede or facilitate this communication process. The purpose of this paper is related to these last two trends: we conceptually examine some of the mediating processes that might occur in the HRM – performance relationship, and try to make explicit their multilevel nature. In order to accomplish this, we will first explore the concept of variance, which is crucial to the analysis of any phenomena across multiple levels. We will show how virtually all existing SHRM research focuses on variance at one level of analysis while assuming constancy at other levels. We will next discuss the process through which HRM practices must act, and identify some of the relevant variables that have heretofore been virtually ignored in the empirical SHRM literature, specifically focusing on variance at different (unit vs. individual) levels of analysis. Finally, we will present some implications for theorizing and research in this area

Variability Within Organizations: Implications for Strategic Human Resource Management

[Excerpt] Strategic human resource management refers to the pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable an organization to achieve its goals (Wright & McMahan, 1992). It involves all of the activities that are implemented by an organization to affect the behavior of individuals in an effort to implement the strategic needs of a business. Over the last decade or so, the field of strategic human resource management has witnessed a progression through a number of stages, including a) initial excitement and energy around the convincing argument that HR practices should be considered as a system that, when implemented appropriately, can enhance organizational performance; b) empirical tests of this argument, and c) critiques of the growing field accompanied by propositions for how thinking on the topic can be expanded and improved. Of the critiques that have been levied at the field, the most common contend that the “black box” through which HRM practices are thought to impact organizational performance remains insufficiently specified. Less common, but no less valuable, are critiques surrounding the conceptualization and measurement of fit or alignment, and the need to identify the boundary conditions that influence the effectiveness of “high performance” HRM systems. Even more critiques and proposed theoretical extensions to the field are likely, as it is through such endeavors that we will improve upon and advance our science (cf. Reichers & Schneider, 1990). In this chapter, we introduce and discuss another potential critique of the SHRM field, and, in so doing, hope to illuminate a number of important research questions for the future. In particular, we are concerned with the lack of attention which has been paid to variability within SHRM research. By variability we mean variability at all relevant levels of analysis, but particularly variability within organizations (i.e., individual and group levels). It is our contention that by failing to examine the potential role of variability in SHRM research, we miss a very interesting and important part of the picture