Search results

Handbook for Strategic City-University co-operation

Worldwide, there is a growing recognition that strategic partnering between cities and universities can bring substantial benefits for both sides. The big question is how to organize such partnerships successfully. This handbook offers insights, best practices and advice for leaders in cities and universities that want to go beyond “ad hoc” projects and take the next step towards a strategic and sustainable partnership. The handbook identifies promising avenues, but also barriers and pitfalls and how to avoid them. Illustrated by a rich variety of examples from European cities, the handbook provides concrete advice on the various stages of strategic city-university collaboration. This handbook intends to provide inspiring practices and guidance to develop strategic interaction between city and university, considering the complex and layered nature of both. The focus lies on the more strategic, transformational types of collaborations, that are more complex.

Public Private Learning Communities

Re-structuring of a Dutch mono-industrial region; example of Twente

Re-structuring of a Dutch mono-industrial region; example of TwenteTable of contents of the chapter    Introduction    Geography and location of Twente    Industrialization of Twente and development of the Textile Industry    Decline of the Textile Industry    Restructuring Twente: arguments for a regional innovation strategy    Moving towards a more diversified economy    Stronger co-operation between governments, universities, and industries    The role of universities and the example of ‘Kennispark Twente’    Further regional and international co-operation    Twente today

Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research, Development and Innovation in SME's

In December of 2004 the Directorate General for Research and Technological Development (DG RTD) of the European Commission (EC) set up a High-Level Expert Group to propose a series of measures to stimulate the reporting of Intellectual Capital in research intensive Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Expert Group has focused on enterprises that either perform Research and Development (R&D), or use the results of R&D to innovate and has also considered the implications for the specialist R&D units of larger enterprises, dedicated Research & Technology Organizations and Universities. In this report the Expert Group presents its findings, leading to six recommendations to stimulate the reporting of Intellectual Capital in SMEs by raising awareness, improving reporting competencies, promoting the use of IC Reporting and facilitating standardization.

Controlling the Valves

Conflict lies at the core of urban sustainability transitions and the indispensable structural changes that accompany them. In this chapter we examine the RESILIO project, a multi-actor collaboration in Amsterdam aiming to transition towards a 'climate proof' city through smart water retention systems on urban roofs. The focus is on the conflict that emerged during discussions about controlling the smart valves on the rooftops which are designed to prevent urban flooding. Using a discourse analytical framework, the study analyses participant interactions, conflicting positions, and discursive strategies employed by the partners involved in the initiative. Participants utilised several discursive strategies, including identity, stake, and accountability management, to manage their positions in the conflict and influence the discourse. The study highlights the challenges of addressing conflict that involves redefining accountability and responsibility between public and private actors in the collaborative setting of transition initiatives. By doing so the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how conflict can shape learning processes and foster sustainable urban transitions.

The application of arbitration in transnational private regulation

This paper investigates the prospective application of arbitration by Transnational Private Regulation (TPR). It builds on the study of TPR developed by Fabrizio Cafaggi et al. TPR addresses the ever-increasing transfer of regulatory power from national to global levels, and from public to private regulators. TPR entails private regulatory co-operation be-yond the jurisdictional boundaries of States through voluntary standards. The regimes of TPR are built by a variety of actors, such as companies, NGOs, independent experts, and epistemic communities. Examples of TPR can be found in food safety, forestry management, trade, and derivatives, among other fields. More specifically, they concern private actors engaging in transnational coordination of standard setting such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that was developed to foster responsible management of the world’s forests. There are four main characteristics of TPR: legitimacy, quality, effectiveness, and enforcement. I will describe those four characteristics in brief here. First, the legitimacy of TPR is built around consent through voluntary entry, participation, and exit of regulated entities. Important to this contribution is that the legitimacy of TPR goes beyond its legal dimension, measured by purely legal standards. Hence, the legitimacy of TPR is largely determined by standards developed by social and economic institutions relevant to specific TPR regimes. The role of those institutions in standard settings is higher in private TPR regimes than private-public TPR regimes, where some forms of compliance are mandatory. Second, the quality of TPR corresponds to the ex ante and ex post evaluation cycle of regulatory processes. It is also linked with the transparency of TPR. Third, the effectiveness of TPR is measured according to the extent to which the objectives of TPR (or selected TPR regimes) are met. And finally, enforcement of TPRis understood as ‘ensuring compliance with commitments’. Enforcement of TPR can take place through courts, administrative agencies, and private dispute resolution—including the arbitration at the core of this contribution. Cafaggi’s study identified rather selective use of arbitration in TPR, but also recommended changes to make arbitration law more adaptable to TPR. Furthermore, the study recommended that more specialized dispute resolution institutions are created to exclusively serve TPR. Against this background, I shift the main focus of analysis from TPR to arbitration. Whereas Cafaggi argued that arbitration may be suitable for TPR as a means of private enforcement, in this paper I go even further, arguing that arbitration as a means of informal, out-of-court dispute resolution is well suited to strengthen the normativity of TPR. This is so because private arbitration actors (including, inter alia, arbitrators and arbitral institutions) are already equipped with the tools necessary to facilitate cross-border TPR, which is done through informal standards and procedures with origins in the communitarian values and reputational mechanisms used by different communities before the development of modern States. The roots of most private justice regimes—including arbitration—are informed by communitarian values such as collaboration, participation, and personal trust. Those values, together with other core characteristics of arbitration correspond to all core characteristics of TPR, making both systems comparable and complementary. The analytical framework incorporated in this paper follows the four core characteristics of TPR. Hence, the paper is organized into five sections. The first section contains the introduction. In the second section, I analyze the legitimacy of arbitration vis-à-vis the legitimacy of TPR. In the third section, I investigate the accountability of arbitration as a means of quality signaling vis-à-vis TPR. In the fourth section, I focus on the remedies available to arbitrators in a view of TPR’s effectiveness. Finally, in the fifth section, I analyze enforcement through arbitration and its impact on the exclusiveness versus complementarity of TPR regimes. Conclusions follow, including recommendations for future research. Part of topic "The blurring distinction between public and private in international dispute resolution"