Search results

Between 2008 and 2011 academic teaching staff from Leeds Beckett University (UK) and Chainama Hills College of Health Sciences (Zambia) worked together on a Development Partnership in Higher Education (DelPHe) project funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) via the British Council. The partnership focused on “up-scaling” the provision of mental health education which was intended to build capacity through the delivery of a range of workshops for health educators at Chainama College, Lusaka. The project was evaluated on completion using small focus group discussions (FGDs), so educators could feedback on their experience of the workshops and discuss the impact of learning into their teaching practice. This chapter discusses the challenges of scaling up the mental health workforce in Zambia; the rationale for the content and delivery style of workshops with the health educators and finally presents and critically discusses the evaluation findings.

The purpose of this paper is to critically discuss how the psy-sciences have been, and continue to be, typified by some critics, as colonizers and are credited with Imperialistic motivations. However, rarely are these critiques developed beyond a pejorative characterisation.

This paper reviews the criticisms of psychiatry as colonial and outlines the tensions in taking different frames of reference in the mental health field, before going on to suggest theoretical and research perspectives arising from postcolonial theory that might advance these critical positions more coherently and the implications of doing so.

This study suggests an engagement with humanities-based methods and fields such as postcolonial scholarship.

This argument is timely, especially given recent controversies over the publication of DSM5, the scaling up agenda for mental health in the Global South and increased attention to the agenda of Big Pharma.

Postcolonial intersections with psy-science remains a relatively undeveloped area in the critical literature.

In this chapter, the author critically examines the relationship between sociology and the identities/experiences of disability and ‘mental illness’ (referred to throughout as distress). The author argues that despite sociology having an ethos of social justice and frequently producing critical accounts of inequalities – such as anti-racism and gender equality – it nonetheless uncritically reiterates the marginalisation of disability and distress. As such, sociology not only reflects the increasing ‘medicalisation of everyday life’ and shores up the essentialist discourses of genetics and neuroscience, but also consigns research and knowledge production about disability and distress to the medical sciences. The author challenges these sociological conventions and highlights the ways in which both disability and distress are socially structured, embodied experiences. The author argues that a sociological account of distress and disability are important not only in and of themselves, but also because they highlight the ways and means to challenge essentialism, inequality and the ever-narrowing definition of what is considered a normal or acceptable part of human experience. Furthermore, vibrant streams of user-led research, activism and practice-interventions – resulting in widespread social, legal and identity transformations – have emerged from the experiences of disability and distress. These user-led perspectives highlight the importance and potential of knowledge produced from the margins, not only for those experiencing disability and/or distress but also for the ways in which we perceive, theorise and research the social world more broadly.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the endogeneity of asset values and how it relates to farm financial stress in US agriculture. The authors conceptualize an implied measure of farm financial stress as a function of debt position. The authors posit that there are variations in the asset values that are beyond the farmer’s control and therefore have implications on farm debt.

The framework recognizes the endogeneity of return on assets (ROA). It uses a non-parametric technique to approximate the variance of expected ROA (VEROA). The authors model the rate of return on agricultural assets and interest rate with a formulation that focuses on macroeconomic policy. Further, the authors use a dynamic balanced panel data set from 1960 to 2011 for 15 US agricultural states from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey, and information from traditional state-level financial statements.

Estimation of linear dynamic debt panel data models accounting for the endogeneity of ROA and VEROA is a challenging task. Estimated variances are unstable. Hence, the authors focus on variance specification that uses the residuals squared from the ARIMA specification and non-parametric estimators. Arellano-Bover/Blundell-Bond generalized method of moments estimation procedures, although may be biased, show that VEROA has a negative and significant effect on the total amount of debt in the agricultural sector.

The instruments used in this analysis are lagged regressors which may be weakly correlated with the relevant first-order condition, hence not properly identifying the parameters of interest. Future research could include the identification of better instruments, potentially use of sequential moment conditions.

Unlike previous study, the authors use non-parametric approximation of VEROA. The authors model the rate of return on agricultural assets and interest rate with a formulation that focuses on macroeconomic policy. Second, the authors make use of a large dynamic balanced panel data set from 1960 to 2011 for 15 agricultural states in the USA. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the few that provides evidence on risk-balancing behavior at the agricultural sector level, of the USA.

The moral hazard problem which obstructs external equity financing of farm businesses is studied using the principal‐agent framework. We assume that the supplier of external equity capital (the principal) cannot directly observe the farmer’s (agent’s) effort, but can observe the random outcome of the effort. We solve for the optimal farm income‐sharing rule that includes an extra share to the agent. The extra share is dependent on the random outcome and is provided to induce optimal effort from the agent. Results show a farmer’s effort is inversely related to the level of risk aversion and the riskiness of the project. Thus, an investor must share more income when a farmer is more risk averse or a project is more risky.

This paper aims to provide a “biography” of sorts on Agricultural Finance Review. The paper tracks the evolution of Agricultural Finance Review from its introduction in 1938 to its current status.

The paper is based on a complete review of every paper and every issue. Not all papers were read by the author, but key papers of interest that in one way or another made significant contributions to the study of agricultural finance were reviewed.

The paper shows the evolution of agricultural finance from the early days of reporting financial data in the 1930s and 1940s, to its emergence as a major and significant sub discipline of the general field of agricultural economics.

As indicated, not all papers were fully reviewed or read. It is possible that papers identified as “firsts” may have been preceded by other papers. Nonetheless the paper identifies the basic evolutionary path of the journal and defines key points in time when a paradigm shift emerged to change the direction of this discipline.

As Agricultural Finance Review transitions from the Department of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University to Emerald Group Publishing Limited, this “biography” provides readers with a general overview of the journal's and the discipline's historical development.

This paper is simply a review of the existing literature found in Agricultural Finance Review.

La Revue de Tourisme a déjà consacré tout un numéro à ce sujet (n° 3/1950). Si nous y revenons, c'est surtout pour les motifs suivants: D'abord, le sujet en soi est à peu près inépuisable. Ensuite, il s'agit d'en donner maintenant une vue d'ensemble et d'en examiner d'autres aspects. Enfin, l'occasion nous en est directement fournie par la publication récente de l'ouvrage cité ci‐après de M. J. G. Ramaker (Tourisme et transports) et par l'exposé que, sous le même titre, l'auteur de ces lignes a fait le 11 février 1955 dans un cours d'instruction organisé par la Swissair à Zurich pour son personnel, avec le concours de l'Ecole suisse des hautes études économiques et administratives de Saint‐Gall.

Off‐farm investment decisions of farm households are analyzed. Farm‐level data for a sample of Kansas farms observed from 1994 through 2000 are utilized. A system of censored dependent variable models is estimated to investigate the factors that influence the composition of farm households’ portfolios. The central question underlying the analysis is whether farm income variability influences off‐farm investment decisions. Previous analyses on the determinants of non‐farm investments have failed to consider the role of income variability. Results of this study indicate that higher farm income fluctuations increase the relevance of non‐farm assets in the farm household portfolio, thus suggesting these assets are used as farm household income risk management tools.

Ayant le privilège de pouvoir présenter une communication dans un Congrès d'éminents spécialistes, j'ai préféré évoquer quelques hypothèses concernant un problème très simple: le Tourisme et la Méditerranée, plutôt que de décrire minutieusement une station ou un type de réception. J'habite sur les rivages de la Méditerranée et j'y pratique le tourisme; mais c'est surtout la préparation d'une thèse sur «L'évolution du Tourisme dans le Sud‐est méditerranéen» qui m'a conduit à ces réflexions que je soumets ci‐après.