Suchergebnisse

The literature highlights how climate change might challenge the definitions of wine geographical indications (GIs) in Europe. The central issue addressed in this thesis is whether European GI viticultural systems could tackle climate change via initiating adaptive institutional change processes to relax the constraints imposed by GI production standards. To do so, drawing from institutional economics theory and literature on cooperatives and collective brand, we developed a novel agent-based model (ABM) representing an abstract GI wine production system in the European Union (EU). Using illustrative data, our model allows testing different impact scenarios driven by climate change, spatial heterogeneity, and alternative institutional settings (i.e., voting mechanism). We used the model to explore individual and collective components of climate resilience and the relationship between economic agents and their environment. We compared the average output of 100 simulations for each of the 12 different climate-landscape-institution scenarios. The inclusion of endogenous institutional change led to considerable variations in all target variables, including the emergence of complex/chaotic behaviours. It enabled the system to reduce farm exits, increase profitability and collective brand value. We showed how landscape heterogeneity has a twofold role in the climate resilience of the system. It increases individual adaptability but obstructs collective adaptive capacity through institutional change. The two different voting mechanisms considered (i.e., relative and absolute majority) did not produce any discernible result. The study highlights the importance of policies oriented to strengthening investments in intangibles and facilitating GI rule amendments, especially in sectors where cooperatives predominate due to poor intangible investments capability and other issues connected to member heterogeneity.

The intrusion of management as major referenceof the functioning of our societies, raises thequestion on the de-institutionalization of theinstitution and, as reflection, that of theinstitutionalization of the organization, in a dualevolutionary perspective and directed asunavoidable. The modalities of businessmanagement are placed in effect between theinstitutionalization (caused by the generalization of their practices in the "corporate purposes")and the institutional frame that surrounds them,and understood in their extension in terms ofgovernance. This ambiguity is tied to the vaguedefinition of the institution and the organizationand to their reciprocally problematic location. Thegeneral hypothesis of this text will be theorthogonality (and not the opposition) between"institution" and "organization". It will bereasoned generally from the point of differencesand not from the opposition of both terms basedon three arguments: a political argument, atheoretical argument and an epistemologicalargument. ; La intrusión de la Administración como referencia principal del funcionamiento de nuestras sociedades, plantea el interrogante sobre la desinstitucionalización de la institución y, como reflejo, aquella de la institucionalización de la organización, en una perspectiva evolucionista dual y direccionada como ineludible. Las modalidades de gestión empresarial se sitúan en efecto entre la institucionalización (causada por la generalización de sus prácticas en los «objetos sociales») y el marco institucional que las rodea, incluso en su extensión en términos de gobernanza. Esta ambigüedad está ligada a la vaga definición de la institución y de la organización y a su localización recíprocamente problemática. La hipótesis general de este texto será la ortogonalidad (y no la oposición) entre «institución» y «organización». Se razonará generalmente a partir de las diferencias y no por la oposición de los dos términos á partir de tres argumentos: un argumento político, un argumento teórico y un argumento epistemológico

Obra perteneciente al Fondo Antiguo de la Biblioteca de la USAL

El artículo procura indagar distintos modos de abordar el discurrir del neoliberalismo, destacando cómo se anuda con las nociones de acción, tiempo e institución. En primer lugar, recupera una lectura crítica de la doxa que se organizó alrededor del curso de Foucault "El nacimiento de la biopolítica"; luego compara dos investigaciones contemporáneas sobre cómo pudo operar, y sigue operando, el neoliberalismo en América Latina; finalmente, y a la luz de nuestra cuestión medular, esbozamos una discusión teórica en torno al vínculo entre las figuras de la práctica y la de la institución a partir de la perspectiva inaugurada por Merleau-Ponty. En suma, se trata de reponer la complejidad del fenómeno cruzando los enfoques filosóficos con investigaciones de talante empírico intentando extraer sus consecuencias teóricas y política. ; The article tries to investigate different ways of approaching the course of neoliberalism, highlighting how it is knotted with the notions of action, time and institution. In the first place, it recovers a critical reading of the doxa that was organized around Foucault's course "The Birth of Biopolitics"; then he compares two contemporary investigations on how neoliberalism in Latin America could operate, and continues to operate; finally, and in light of our core issue, we outline a theoretical discussion about the link between the figures of practice and that of the institution from the perspective inaugurated by Merleau-Ponty. In short, it is a matter of replenishing the complexity of the phenomenon by crossing philosophical approaches with empirical research, trying to extract its theoretical and political consequences. ; Fil: Eiff, Leonardo Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento; Argentina

The present work aims to point out some possible tasks for the Karl-Otto Apel´s discourse ethics today. Such tasks may concentrate on the need for a theory of the institutionalization of practical discourse, as a form of socially realized practical rationality. The question that has to be answered is what frame conditions should be found in the discourse so that it can be put into practice and what political-institutional effects it can produce in the context of really existing institutions. Starting with Gehlen and Luhmann -although to a lesser extent-, Apel interprets institutions as systems of self-affirmation that, on the one hand, free the subjects from the burden of action, but, on the other hand, limit or determine the consensual-argumentative rationality of discourse. The functional coercions (Sachzwänge) of the institutions configure a field of action and a type of rationality that, according to Apel, should be under the control of institutionalized discourse as a rational public sphere (Öffentlichkeit). The relationship between the ideal normative criteria of the institutionalized practical discourse and the existing institutions must be interpreted as a non-surmountable dialectical tension or intertwining. If this interpretation is correct, the discourse ethics, as a critical theory of society, cannot be understood as an application without more ideal normative criteria to the historical reality or adaptation of that reality to ideal criteria in its vertical sense, but as a mutual horizontal correlation.

The present work aims to point out some possible tasks for the Karl-Otto Apel´s discourse ethics today. Such tasks may concentrate on the need for a theory of the institutionalization of practical discourse, as a form of socially realized practical rationality. The question that has to be answered is what frame conditions should be found in the discourse so that it can be put into practice and what political-institutional effects it can produce in the context of really existing institutions. Starting with Gehlen and Luhmann -although to a lesser extent-, Apel interprets institutions as systems of self-affirmation that, on the one hand, free the subjects from the burden of action, but, on the other hand, limit or determine the consensual-argumentative rationality of discourse. The functional coercions (Sachzwänge) of the institutions configure a field of action and a type of rationality that, according to Apel, should be under the control of institutionalized discourse as a rational public sphere (Öffentlichkeit). The relationship between the ideal normative criteria of the institutionalized practical discourse and the existing institutions must be interpreted as a non-surmountable dialectical tension or intertwining. If this interpretation is correct, the discourse ethics, as a critical theory of society, cannot be understood as an application without more ideal normative criteria to the historical reality or adaptation of that reality to ideal criteria in its vertical sense, but as a mutual horizontal correlation.