At the same time that comparative and international political scientists have been confronting the problems of analysing state behaviour under conditions of uncertainty, state-centred political scientists are attempting, somewhat belatedly, to deal with the increasing complexity and uncertainty which underpins modern governance. Yet despite similar research agendas these disciplines have continued to speak past each other. This article contends that policy transfer analysis can provide a context for integrating some key concerns of these disciplines. Further, we argue that the process of policy transfer should be examined through a structure and agency approach with three dimensions: global, international and transnational levels, the macro-level and the interorganizational level. This three-dimensional model employs the notion of a policy transfer network as a middle-range level of analysis which links a particular form of policy development (policy transfer), microdecision making in organizations, macro-systems and global, transnational and international systems. It is hoped that this approach will stimulate an empirical research agenda which will illuminate important policy developments in domestic and world politics.

Development policies in the pastoral areas of Africa assume that pastoralists are poor. Using the Afar pastoralists of Ethiopia as the focus of research this article challenges this depiction of pastoralism by exploring pastoral livelihood goals and traditional strategies for managing risk. Investment in social institutions to minimise the risk of outright destitution, sometimes at the cost of increased poverty, and significant manipulation of local markets enable the Afar to exploit a highly uncertain and marginal environment. Improved development assistance and enhanced targeting of the truly vulnerable within pastoral societies demands an acceptance that pastoral poverty is neither uniform nor universal.

The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) recently commissioned a series of reviews on the economics of pastoralism. Eight regional desk studies were conducted: (1) Southern Africa and the Horn, (2) West Africa, (3) East Africa, (4) North Africa, (5) South America, (6) Asia, (7) the Middle East, and (8) Europe. The studies sought to identify the contribution of pastoralism to domestic and global markets, by gathering productivity indicators and market behaviour, and identifying indirect values and methodologies for analysing indirect values. This review is intended to add to the global understanding on the importance of mobile pastoralism as a form of productive and sustainable land management. By gathering information, the review highlights existing knowledge on the value of pastoralism, gaps in this knowledge, trends in pastoral economies, and policy options that can support rangeland economies most effectively. Presented here is a summary of the main points relating to economic valuation of mobile pastoralism.

It is increasingly recognised that land degradation monitoring and assessment can benefit from incorporating multiple sources of knowledge, using a variety of methods at different scales, including the perspectives of researchers, land managers and other stakeholders. However, the knowledge and methods required to achieve this are often dispersed across individuals and organisations at different levels and locations. Appropriate knowledge management mechanisms are therefore required to more efficiently harness these different sources of knowledge and facilitate their broader dissemination and application. This paper examines what knowledge is, how it is generated and explores how it may be stored, transferred and exchanged between knowledge producers and users before it is applied to monitor and assess land degradation at the local scale. It suggests that knowledge management can also benefit from the development of mechanisms that promote changes in understanding and efficient means of accessing and/or brokering knowledge. Broadly, these processes for knowledge management can (i) help identify and share good practices and build capacity for land degradation monitoring at different scales and in different contexts and (ii) create knowledge networks to share lessons learned and monitoring data among and between different stakeholders, scales and locations. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract