INTRA-REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN LUXEMBOURG (1994–2005)

The specialization of city-centres towards more advanced service activities has mostly been studied in the largest city-regions, the case of smaller urban centres being less well documented. In that context, the objective of this article is to analyse the role of sectoral and regional factors in employment growth in Luxembourg between 1994 and 2005. Using statistical data from the Luxembourg General Inspection of Social Security, this contribution distinguishes 12 categories of manufacturing industries and services according to an OECD-Eurostat knowledge-based classification. Five intra-regional areas are distinguished based on morphological and functional criteria in the Luxembourg Metropolitan Area. Using several indexes, this article first analyses the sectoral specialization and geographical concentration of employment. A model of intra-regional employment growth, initially developed by Marimon and Zilibotti and applied at the European level, is then shown to account for 40 per cent of employment growth. An estimation of the contributions of sectoral and geographical factors highlights the primacy of the latter over the former. Finally, the construction of virtual economies confirms the City's overall lower performance as compared to its close periphery. Results underscore a process of functional integration in the Luxembourg metropolitan area: as the core of the city undergoes a specialization process, the urban area benefits from a relocation of activities less sensitive to distance and transaction costs, while the periphery becomes increasingly diversified, notably in the South where traditional industrial activities are being replaced by service activities. These results suggest that the evolution pattern of employment growth in Luxembourg is very similar to that of some larger metropolitan centres, owing to its exceptional financial service activities.     

Willingness to Pay for Multifunctional Megaprojects: A Stated Preference Analysis Among Firms in the Amsterdam Zuidas Area

Urban (re-)development projects may generate various positive and negative spatial externalities to employers. The assessment of such benefits is fraught with many methodological and empirical problems. This study aims to assess the order of magnitude of expected net benefits for incumbent employers that may accrue from a large-scale development project in the Zuidas area in the South-Western part of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This development project is planned to transform the area into a large multifunctional urban agglomeration. We employ a specific stated preference method (namely, a willingness-to-pay method) to gauge the project's net socio-economic benefits for the current firms in the area concerned, paying special attention to the benefits associated with multifunctionality.     

REGIONAL WAGE DIFFERENCES IN THE NETHERLANDS: MICRO EVIDENCE ON AGGLOMERATION EXTERNALITIES

Based on micro data on individual workers for the period 2000–2005, we show that wage differentials in the Netherlands are small but present. A large part of these differentials can be attributed to individual characteristics. Remaining effects are partially explained by variations in employment density, with an elasticity of about 4.8 percent, and by Marshall‐Arrow‐Romer externalities, where doubling the local share of a (two‐digit) industry results in a 2.9 percent higher productivity. We also find evidence for small negative effects of competition (Porter externalities) and diversity (Jacobs externalities).     

EASTER ISLAND： THE EVOLUTION OF ITS CULTURE UNTIL THE DESTRUCTIONS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

1. Introduction
Since the first time Easter Island was explored, scholars have been arguing and speculating about the date of the natives＇ arrival, the nature and purpose of the larger statues, its actual number of inhabitants, the reasons for the progressive deforestation of the island, etc.     

Lao State Formation in Phôngsali Villages: Rising Intervention in the Daily Household and Phounoy Reaction

Abstract

Since the mid-nineteenth century, the Phunoy in Phongsaly province have been closely linked with the state in Laos through their role in defence, yet state intervention in their affairs has remained minimal. Villages have traditionally organised their own social and economic lives without interference at household or community levels. Since the first half of the twentieth?century, successive states in Laos have attempted to benefit from Phunoy villages, but they have had limited and transient success. For the last 15?years, however, the state has become a more significant reality for villagers, with a swath of policies implemented locally: resettlement, land reform, mandatory commercial plantations, a shifting cultivation ban, a hunting ban, etc. This synergistic cocktail has contributed to drastic and irreversible changes in village livelihoods and the landscape. Surprisingly, the Phunoy have not reacted publicly to this drastic revolution of their livelihood. I investigate whether their apparent lack of resistance is a counter-example to the more widely-debated concept of “Zomia”. I conclude that the Phunoy resist the state at the family level, and move away from their former homes, leaving behind a deserted landscape.

????????????????? 19 ??????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ??? ??????. ????????????????????? 20, ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????. ?????? ????? 15 ???????????, ????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ?????: ????????????????, ????????????????, ??????????????????????, ???????????????????? ?????. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????. ????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? “???????” (Zomia) ??????????????????????????????????????????. ??????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????.     

Constructing the Past

Ronald L. Grimes. Symbol and Conquest: Public Ritual and Drama in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976. 281 pp. $16.50.     

Dendrochronology reveals the construction history of an early 19th century farm settlement,southwestern Virginia,USA

The McDonald Farm (also called the Anderson-Doosing Farm) in Catawba Valley, Virginia dates to 1789 and is registered with the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the National Park Service. According to written accounts, oral histories, and architectural analyses, the construction of four structures (a collapsed cabin, a standing cabin, a barn, and a smokehouse) at the farm likely occurred in the early to mid-19th century. To verify and refine the construction dates of the four structures, we absolutely dated the tree rings in logs used in their construction by comparing their ring patterns with a composite reference tree-ring chronology created from four regional locations. We used established graphical and statistical techniques used in dendrochronology to ensure that all tree rings were dated absolutely with 99.99% certainty. We found cutting dates for the collapsed cabin ranged from 1809 to 1810, making the likely builder Samuel Myers and not Joseph Anderson, who is currently given credit for its construction. The logs in the barn had cutting dates ranging from 1830 to 1831, confirming the 1830 construction date estimated by the historical documents and confirming the builder was Joseph Anderson. The logs from the standing cabin and smokehouse had cutting dates ranging from 1838 to 1840, refining the “mid-19th century construction” listed in the register nomination. Furthermore, the nomination gave credit of the construction of these latter two structures also to Joseph Anderson, but the builder was actually John Gish who owned the farm from 1837 to 1845. Our study demonstrates the benefit and reliability of using dendrochronology to verify and refine construction dates and ownership histories of historic structures in the Southeastern U.S.