Global Connectedness and Bilateral Economic Linkages - Which Countries?

Access to off-shore markets, technology, and ideas are important to greater productivity and higher living standards in New Zealand. Global connectedness requires deep and rich links with other countries. However, as a small country, we only have the resources to focus on a handful of countries. Are there a key set of countries with which New Zealand should be seeking to form deeper bilateral economic relationships? This paper reviews the benefits from deeper external bilateral economic engagements using the insights from the new literature on economic growth, which place great importance on trade; international integration, human capital, and local and cross-border knowledge spillovers from research and development (R&D) and foreign direct investment (FDI). This paper will then use insights from the new literature on economic growth to develop criteria for selecting countries as partners for deeper bilateral economic linkages across six global connectedness dimensions: FDI, R&D links, trade in goods, inbound tourism, education exports, and people linkages. To account for the growing role of a number of economies in global trade, the partner selection criteria will identify two groupings of target countries. The first grouping is focus countries: those countries that are of immediate interest for deeper bilateral linkages. The second country grouping is horizon countries: countries that are likely to grow in their importance to New Zealand over the next 10 to 20 years. The key message of this paper is a greater bilateral economic focus by New Zealand on the major economies along the Asia-Pacific Rim (and the UK). When external initiatives come before decision-makers, they should be seen through a lens that places greater confidence in proposals for deeper relationships with the Asia-Pacific Rim countries (or the UK), and greater scrutiny of proposals that emphasise other regions and countries.economic growth; trade; economic integration; migration; technology diffusion; New Zealand

Privatisation

For many politicians and academic commentators privatisation has implications reaching far beyond the mere transfer of ownership. Conservative governments have in the past introduced denationalisation programmes although never on the present grand scale. As Simpson (1984) and others have pointed out, the Government and its supporters often fail to distinguish between the effects of denationalisation and the benefits of liberalisation. It is a widely held view that nationalised industries are less efficient than private companies. Although Heald & Steel (1982) are doubtful about this proposition the essence of their argument can be summarised as follows: "public enterprises are intrinsically less efficient than private enterprises because they are insulated from the disciplines of the capital and product markets" (p.339). It is at this point that the distinction between liberalisation and denationalisation must be drawn and this economic perspective will attempt to delineate the reasons why

Outlook and appraisal [December 1996]

Growth in key Scottish export markets continued to slow in 1996. EU GDP growth moderated to V/z% from 2lA% in 1995 and 2%% in 1994 whilst OECD growth averaged 2VA% up from 1.9% in 1995. The better performance of the OECD economies reflects recovery in Japan and the USA

Outlook and appraisal [December 1994]

Output data are now available from the Scottish Office for the production and construction industries in the second quarter of 1994

Guidelines for producing rice using furrow irrigation

"Original authors: Paul Tracy, Barry D. Sims, Steven G. Hefner and John P. Cairns""Missouri rice farmers started furrow-irrigated production beginning around 1990. For many years, the amount of land in "row rice" was small. But interest in the cropping system has increased in recent years. About 30% of the rice currently is produced with furrow irrigation. In felds well suited to fooded rice, furrow irrigation usually does not increase yields. Te main advantage of furrow-irrigated rice is that levees and gates are not required. Tis saves rice producers time and labor costs. Soils are an important factor in the decision process. For felds that do not efciently retain foodwater, furrow irrigation may be a good fit. Te purpose of this publication is to introduce producers to the furrow-irrigated rice system and help interested individuals decide whether that system has potential for use on their farms."--First page.Written by: Gene Stevens (Extension Professor, Agronomy), Johanna Nelson (Research/Lab Technician, Plant Sciences), Jim Heiser (Senior Research Associate, Plant Sciences)Revised 10/93, Revised 1/2

Rice Production with Furrow Irrigation in the Mississippi River Delta Region of the USA

Furrow irrigated rice is an alternative method for growing rice with less water and labor than conventional flood irrigation. In the Mississippi River Delta region, layflat plastic pipe is used to supply water to furrows from irrigation wells. Different size holes are punched in pipe to optimize uniformity of water distribution. Beds are made before planting to channel water down furrows. Rice seed is planted in rows with a grain drill. Water infiltration in furrows is two-dimensional through a wetted perimeter with soil in the bottom of furrows and sidewalls of beds. An ideal field for furrow irrigation has no more than 0.1% slope with high clay content. No rice cultivars have been developed specifically for furrow irrigation but tests showed that some cultivars tolerate water stress better than others. In field trials, rice yields with furrow irrigation were lower than flooded rice with the greatest yield loss in the upper part of fields. However, results indicated that rice yields can be increased with proper timing of nitrogen fertilization and irrigation and adaption of new rice herbicides for weed control

Rethinking models of architectural research:: we don't do objects

Historically, an argument can be made that architectural research was produced internal to firms and manufacturers as proprietary objects or sets of data. The concept of disciplines and professions reinforced the separation of open-sourced knowledge and the application of that knowledge in a commercial context. However, design has rapidly changed from an object-solution profession and is now faced with finding solutions to complex problems within complex systems. The past practice model of client, architect, and final product seems an ill-fit in this new context. The question is how to integrate a critical research process into a professional capacity in which that architectural research needs an inherent and immediate value to be performed or pursued. The SYNCH Research Group [synchRG] was formed in response to this question. Although research consortiums, design initiatives and research centres exist within many schools of architecture, most operate as a department or extensions of a school of architecture. SynchRG operates in neither private practice nor as a division of the university. Organized as a diverse and fluid association of faculty, students, professionals, and consultants, the synchRG group is focused on a design methodology and philosophical structure rather than a client, site, building, typology, or object. The focus on idiosyncratic or aesthetic solutions to singular problems is set aside in order to provide a collaborative intellectual space for professional based explorations. The paper will examine synchRG's response to current architectural research challenges and illustrate its unique structure as a possible model to be replicated. A dialogue will be initiated on a model for practice aligned with both academia and industry

Rethinking models of architectural research: we don't do objects

Historically, an argument can be made that architectural research was produced internal to firms and manufacturers as proprietary objects or sets of data. The concept of disciplines and professions reinforced the separation of open-sourced knowledge and the application of that knowledge in a commercial context. However, design has rapidly changed from an object-solution profession and is now faced with finding solutions to complex problems within complex systems. The past practice model of client, architect, and final product seems an ill-fit in this new context. The question is how to integrate a critical research process into a professional capacity in which that architectural research needs an inherent and immediate value to be performed or pursued. The SYNCH Research Group [synchRG] was formed in response to this question. Although research consortiums, design initiatives and research centres exist within many schools of architecture, most operate as a department or extensions of a school of architecture. SynchRG operates in neither private practice nor as a division of the university. Organized as a diverse and fluid association of faculty, students, professionals, and consultants, the synchRG group is focused on a designmethodology and philosophical structure rather than a client, site, building, typology, or object. The focus on idiosyncratic or aesthetic solutions to singular problems is set aside in order to provide acollaborative intellectual space for professional based explorations. The paper will examine synchRG's response to current architectural research challenges and illustrate its unique structure as a possible model to be replicated. A dialogue will be initiated on a model for practice aligned with both academia and industry