Den 1 januari 2015 trädde en del ändringar i plan- och bygglagen i kraft. Detta då den dåvarande regeringen ville uppnå en effektivare planprocess, för att öka bebyggandet i riket. Lagändringen påverkade planprocessen samt förutsättningarna till upprättandet av genomförandeavtal. Genom övergångsbestämmelserna lades dock ett förbehåll in, för att reglera i vilka situationer äldre lagstiftning skulle användas. Detta förbehåll är att en detaljplan ska vara ”påbörjad” innan 1 januari 2015. Denna studie syftar till att undersöka när en detaljplan är ”påbörjad”.  Studien grundar sig på att nu gällande plan- och bygglag (fortsatt kallat PBL) samt tillämpningen av denna undersöks utifrån olika metoder. För att tolka juridiken kring begreppet, har ett rättsdogmatiskt förhållningssätt använts genom olika tolkningsmetoder. För att få en förståelse för hur juridiken tillämpas har ett rättssociologiskt förhållningssätt nyttjats. Detta har skett genom att en enkätundersökning utförts, där Sveriges samtliga kommuner tillfrågats hur de tolkar begreppet.  Undersökningen har påvisat att begreppet ”påbörjats” är oklart. I PBL regleras inte vad en ”påbörjad” detaljplan är. De definitioner som Boverket och regeringen har tagit fram är oklart formulerade. Den enkätundersökning som skickades ut till alla Sveriges kommuner gav ett varierande resultat som styrker teorin om att begreppet ”påbörjad” detaljplan är oklart. De befintliga definitionerna är i behov av förtydligande, för att likrikta kommuners tillämpning av dessa övergångsregler. Enkätundersökningen visade att 67 % av kommunerna tolkat begreppet ”påbörjad” efter de definitioner som Boverket samt regeringen utformat. Det som också framkommit genom studien är att skillnaderna i PBL innan och efter 1 januari 2015 är stora, vilket bland annat innebär att kommunens förutsättningar att upprätta detaljplaner och exploateringsavtal har förändrats. / 1st of January 2015 some changes were made in the Planning and Building Act. This was made because of the Swedish government wanted to make the planning process easier. The law changes include the planning process and the development contracts for detailed development plans. The transitional provisions, however, made a reservation to regulate the situations in which older legislation would be used. The regulation is that older legislation should be used if the detailed development plan were initiated prior to 1 January 2015. The purpose of this study is to investigate when a detailed development plan is initiated.  The study is based on current legislation and its application, this will be investigated using various methods. To interpret the law about the concept, legal dignity approach has been used through different interpretation methods. In order to gain an understanding of how the law is applied, a legal sociological approach has been used. This was done by conducting a questionnaire survey, where all the municipalities in Sweden were asked how they interpret the concept.  This has shown that the term is unclearly defined, as evidenced by the varying answers received from the municipalities in the survey. However, the majority of municipalities interpret the concept "initiate" according to the definitions that the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning and the government have formulated. What is also evident from the study is that the differences in the different legislation are large and that the municipality's conditions change significantly depending on when a detailed plan is "initiated". The study also shows that the units within the municipality interpret the term in a generally similar manner. The result of the legal interpretation and compilation of the survey shows that National Board of Housing, Building and Planning and the government's definitions of "initiated" detailed development plan are unclear. And that the existing definitions are in need of clarification for the application of these transitional rules by similar municipalities.

This study examines the importance of public research and development (R&D) expenditures and innovations (prices) to U S agricultural productivity employing panel vector error correction econometric technique Specifically, time-series and panel unit root tests, panel cointegration procedures, panel causality tests, and vector error correction model are used in the analysis. Empirical application to U S state-level data for 1960-2004 suggests positive and statistically significant influence of both supply-side drivers, in the form of public R&D expenditures, and demand-side drivers, in the form of innovations (prices), on total factor productivity growth.

Doctorat en sciences sociales, politiques et économiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

The research performed throughout this dissertation aims at implementing quantitative methods in order to assess economic and technological performances of firms, i.e. it tries to assess the impacts of the determinants of technological activity on the results of this activity. For this purpose, a representative sample of the most important R&D firms in the world is constituted. The micro-economic nature of the analysis, as well as its international dimension are two main features of this research at the empirical level.<p><p>The second chapter illustrates the importance of R&D investments, patenting activities and other measures of technological activities performed by firms over the last 10 years.<p><p>The third chapter describes the main features as well as the construction of the database. The raw data sample consists of comparable detailed micro-level data on 2676 large manufacturing firms from several countries. These firms have reported important R&D expenditures over the period 1980-1994.<p><p>The fourth chapter explores the dynamic structure of the patent-R&D relationship by considering the number of patent applications as a function of present and lagged levels of R&D expenditures. R&D spillovers as well as technological and geographical opportunities are taken into account as additional determinants in order to explain patenting behaviours. The estimates are based on recently developed econometric techniques that deal with the discrete non-negative nature of the dependent patent variable as well as the simultaneity that can arise between the R&D decisions and patenting. The results show evidence of a rather contemporaneous impact of R&D activities on patenting. As far as R&D spillovers are concerned, these externalities have a significantly higher impact on patenting than own R&D. Furthermore, these effects appear to take more time, three years on average, to show up in patents.<p><p>The fifth chapter explores the contribution of own stock of R&D capital to productivity performance of firms. To this end the usual productivity residual methodology is implemented. The empirical section presents a first set of results which replicate the analysis of previous studies and tries to assess the robustness of the findings with regard to the above issues. Then, further results, based on different sub samples of the data set, investigate to what extent the R&D contribution on productivity differs across firms of different industries and geographic areas or between small and large firms and low and high-tech firms. The last section explores more carefully the simultaneity issue. On the whole, the estimates indicate that R&D has a positive impact on productivity performances. Yet, this contribution is far from being homogeneous across the different dimensions of data or according to the various assumptions retained in the productivity model.<p><p>The last empirical chapter goes deeper into the analysis of firms' productivity increases, by considering besides own R&D activities the impact of technological spillovers. The chapter begins by surveying the alternative ways proposed in the literature in order to asses the effect of R&D spillovers on productivity. The main findings reported by some studies at the micro level are then outlined. Then, the framework to formalize technological externalities and other technological determinants is exposed. This framework is based on a positioning of firms into a technological space using their patent distribution across technological fields. The question of whether the externalities generated by the technological and geographic neighbours are different on the recipient's productivity is also addressed by splitting the spillover variable into a local and national component. Then, alternative measures of technological proximity are examined. Some interesting observations emerge from the empirical results. First, the impact of spillovers on productivity increases is positive and much more important than the contribution of own R&D. Second, spillover effects are not the same according to whether they emanate from firms specialized in similar technological fields or firms more distant in the technological space. Finally, the magnitude and direction of these effects are radically different within and between the pillars of the Triad. While European firms do not appear to particularly benefit from both national and international sources of spillovers, US firms are mainly receptive to their national stock and Japanese firms take advantage from the international stock.<p> / Doctorat en sciences économiques, Orientation économie / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished