London School of Economics and Political Science

About: London School of Economics and Political Science is a education organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Politics & Population. The organization has 8759 authors who have published 35017 publications receiving 1436302 citations.

Modern treaty law and practice

Abstract: This new edition of a textbook first published in 2000 provides a comprehensive account of the law of treaties from the viewpoint of an experienced practitioner. As such, it is the first, and only, book of its kind. Aust provides a wealth of examples of the problems experienced with treaties on a daily basis, not just when they are the subject of a court case. He explores numerous precedents from treaties and other related documents, such as memorandums of understanding (MOUs), in detail. Using clear, accessible language, the author covers the full extent of treaty law, drawing examples from both treaties and MOUs. Modern Treaty Law and Practice is essential reading for teachers and students of law, political science, international relations and diplomacy, who have an interest in treaties.

Geography and development

Abstract: The most striking fact about the economic geography of the world is the uneven spatial distribution of economic activity, including the coexistence of economic development and underdevelopment. High-income regions are almost entirely concentrated in a few temperate zones, half of the world's GDP is produced by 15 percent of the world's population, and 54 percent of the world's GDP is produced by countries occupying just 10 percent of the world's land area. The poorest half of the world's population produces only 14 percent of the world's GDP, and 17 of the poorest 20 nations are in tropical Africa. The unevenness is also manifest within countries and within metropolitan concentrations of activity. Why are these spatial differences in land rents and wages not bid away by firms and individuals in search of low-cost or high-income locations? Why does economic activity cluster in centers of activity? And what are the consequences of remoteness from existing centers? The authors argue that understanding these issues is central for understanding many aspects of economic development and underdevelopment at the international, national, and subcontinental levels. They review the theoretical and empirical work that illuminates how the spatial relationship between economic units changes and conclude that geography matters for development, but that economic growth is not governed by a geographic determinism. New economic centers can develop, and the costs of remoteness can be reduced. Many explicit policy instruments have been used to influence location decisions. But none has been systematically successful, and many have been very costly-in part because they were based on inappropriate expectations. Moreover, many ostensibly nonspatial policies that benefit specific sectors and households have spatial consequences since the targeted sectors and households are not distributed uniformly across space. These nonspatial policies can sometimes dominate explicitly spatial policies. Further work is needed to better understand these dynamics in developing countries.

Incentives and invention in universities

Abstract: Using data on U.S. universities, we show that universities that give higher royalty shares to faculty scientists generate greater license income, controlling for university size, academic quality, researchfunding and other factors. We use pre-sample data on university patenting to control for the potential endogeneity of royalty shares. We find that scientists respond both to cash royalties and to royalties used to support their research labs, suggesting both pecuniary and intrinsic (research) motivations. The incentive effects appear to be larger in private universities than in public ones, and we provide survey evidence indicating this may be related to differences in the use of performance pay, government constraints, and local development objectives of technology license offices. Royalty incentives work both by raising faculty effort and sorting scientists across universities. The effect of incentives works primarily by increasing the quality (value) rather than the quantity of inventions.

Making things auditable

Abstract: In contrast to official images of audit as a derived and neutral activity, this essay argues that audit is an active process of “making things auditable” which has two components: the negotiation of a legitimate and institutionally acceptable knowledge base; the creation of environments which are receptive to this knowledge base. These two components are explored and clarified in relation to three areas where the concept of auditability has been officially invoked: making public sector research auditable, and hence accountable; making quality auditable; making brand valuations auditable. The choice of these apparently marginal practices is deliberate. They provide an opportunity to observe a “logic of auditability” which is hidden in more established contexts. In the three cases auditability is accomplished by: auditable measures of performance; systems of control; reliance on other experts. After considering each of these areas in turn, their general implications for a “constructivist” understanding of the concept of auditability are developed. The challenges that this may pose for more established frameworks of audit research are considered briefly.

Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers.

Abstract: In the last decade, network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been introduced as an extension of pairwise meta-analysis. The advantage of network meta-analysis over standard pairwise meta-analysis is that it facilitates indirect comparisons of multiple interventions that have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. Although assumptions underlying pairwise meta-analyses are well understood, those concerning network meta-analyses are perceived to be more complex and prone to misinterpretation. In this paper, we aim to provide a basic explanation when network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis. We focus on the primary role of effect modifiers, which are study and patient characteristics associated with treatment effects. Because network meta-analysis includes different trials comparing different interventions, the distribution of effect modifiers cannot only vary across studies for a particular comparison (as with standard pairwise meta-analysis, causing heterogeneity), but also between comparisons (causing inconsistency). If there is an imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers between different types of direct comparisons, the related indirect comparisons will be biased. If it can be assumed that this is not the case, network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis. The validity of network meta-analysis is based on the underlying assumption that there is no imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers across the different types of direct treatment comparisons, regardless of the structure of the evidence network.