Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Pierre Labarthe is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Pierre Labarthe.


Journal of Environmental Management | 2009

Extension services and multifunctional agriculture. Lessons learnt from the French and Dutch contexts and approaches

Pierre Labarthe

Todays acknowledgement of the multifunctionality of agriculture (MFA) implies the production of new knowledge to integrate different functions at farm level (primary production, environmental protection, food safety, etc.). At the same time, agricultural sectors of European countries have recently faced changes in the organisation of their R&D activities, including a trend of commercialisation and privatisation of advisory services for farmers. To assess the consequences of these changes on support for innovations related to MFA, this paper explores the potential of combining two analytical frameworks: an institutional economic approach (IEA) and a sociological network approach (SNA). This potential is illustrated by a historical analysis of advisory services in France and The Netherlands from 1945 until now. This analysis stresses the importance of collective procedures for the accumulation of technical knowledge in agriculture. It also shows that these procedures could not be analysed from a strictly technical perspective. They are the expression of institutional arrangements involving social groups of farmers and the state, and are grounded in national contexts. A historical perspective also enables us to understand better why the privatisation of extension services cannot meet the requirements of support for farm innovations in the MFA context.


The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension | 2006

Agricultural Extension Services and Market Regulation: Learning from a Comparison of Six EU Countries

Catherine Laurent; Marianne Cerf; Pierre Labarthe

Abstract If farmers are to meet the new challenges facing agriculture (environment, rural development, etc.), appropriate knowledge has to be produced. But observations in six EU countries (France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK) show that unexpected problems arise when technical support for agriculture is linked to market regulation, as recommended since the late 1980s. The source of these problems can be understood better by applying concepts from the service economy: i) The production of new knowledge requires strong interaction between service providers (technical support bodies) and beneficiaries (farmers). The weakening of non-market regulation procedures, which partly guaranteed these possibilities of interaction, makes the conception of an advisory service difficult. ii) As soon as consultancy becomes a paying service, some beneficiaries reduce technical interaction with their colleagues in order to benefit from a productive advantage, and the ‘multipliable’ nature of new knowledge is reduced. iii) An increasing number of farmers are excluded from the benefits of technical support even though they help to provide services that society expects from agriculture (management of the land, maintenance of activities in low-density areas). iv) The responsibility for combining contradictory requirements (competitiveness, environment, rural development) is most often put on the shoulders of individual farmers who are unequipped to deal with such complex issues. Observed trends attest to the fact that effects often run counter to the stated agricultural and rural development objectives of policies.


Evaluation | 2014

Goals of evaluation and types of evidence

Pierre Labarthe; Catherine Laurent

All stakeholders are urged to pay more attention to the quality of evidence used and produced during the evaluation process in order to select appropriate evaluation methods. A ‘theory of evidence for evaluation’ is needed to better address this issue. This article discusses the relationships between the three main goals of evaluation (to learn, measure and understand) and the various types of evidence (evidence of presence, of difference-making, of mechanism) which are produced and/or used in the evaluation process. It argues for the need to clearly distinguish between this approach and that of levels of evidence, which is linked to data collection and processing methods (e.g. single case observations, difference methods, randomized controlled trials…). The analysis is illustrated by examples in the field of agro-environmental policymaking and farm advisory services.


Outlook on Agriculture | 2015

The AKIS concept and its relevance in selected EU member states

Andrea Knierim; K. Boenning; Monica Caggiano; A. Cristovao; Violeta Dirimanova; T. Koehnen; Pierre Labarthe; Katrin Prager

Recently, Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKISs) have gained considerable attention in scientific and political forums in the European Union (EU). AKIS is considered a key concept in identifying, analysing and assessing the various actors in the agricultural sector as well as their communication and interaction for innovation processes. Using qualitative expert interviews and organizational mapping, the features of national AKISs were investigated in selected EU member states (Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, Portugal and the UK). The authors present the different national AKISs and compare them qualitatively with regard to their institutional settings, their overall policy frameworks and their coordinating structures. Conclusions are drawn with regard to AKIS appraisal in general and the usefulness of the AKIS concept, particularly for the understanding and evaluation of policy-induced innovation in agriculture.


Chapters | 2013

Effects of institutions on the integration of end-users’ knowledge in ServPPINs: lessons from two case studies in agro-environmental knowledge-intensive services

Pierre Labarthe; Faïz Gallouj; Faridah Djellal

This chapter is based on the analysis of two case studies in France (see Appendix for a description of the cases): a new advisory service for farmers based on satellite technologies (case FARMSTAR) and a new authentication and geo trace ability system for securing the environmental and organoleptic quality of wine (case GEOWINE). Thus, the cases deal with innovations in the sector of knowledge-intensive services (KIS) that aim at reducing the environmental impact of agriculture and enhancing the quality of its products (here cereals and wine). The goal of this chapter is to confront some theoretical hypotheses about public–private innovation networks in services (ServPPINs) with empirical evidences deriving from the analysis of these two case studies. One major theoretical assumption regarding ServPPINs is that they would allow a better integration of end-users’ knowledge in the innovation process. The cases may enable an understanding of under which conditions (regarding the institutional context) such a hypothesis is validated or not. We chose to compare two cases in order to understand how different institutional settings of ServPPINs may affect their ability to better integrate end-users in designing the very content of the knowledge produced in the back-office dimension of services. The case of KIS such as farm advisory services is very specific.


Archive | 2012

Public-Private Innovation Network in Knowledge Intensive Services: Co-production or Technological Lock-in? FARMSTAR, a Case Study in Advisory Services for Farmers

Pierre Labarthe

This paper presents some results from research carried out within the ServPPIN project (an EU-funded project within the 7th Framework research programme: http://www.servppin.com). It explores the dynamics of a public-private innovation network for Knowledge-Intensive Services (KIS). It is grounded on a case study in the sector of farm advisory services. The service innovation studied is based on the use of satellite images to bring information to farmers who use precision farming technologies. The empirical investigations have led to three major findings. First, the settings of this innovation network have allowed long-term relations between private and public actors, throughout the different stages of the lifecycle necessary to prototype, consolidate, and commercialise a service innovation. Second, the network made it possible to develop the complementarities between private and public stakeholders, both about front-office competences (ability to capture and drive end users’ preferences: here, farmers), and about back-office investments (RD and it emphasises the risks of technological lock-in.


Food Policy | 2013

Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms?

Pierre Labarthe; Catherine Laurent


Tiers-monde | 2009

Pourquoi s'intéresser à la notion d' « evidence-based policy » ?

Catherine Laurent; Jacques Baudry; Marc Kirsch; Daniel Perraud; Bruno Tinel; Aurélie Trouvé; Nicky Allsopp; Patrick Bonnafous; Françoise Burel; Maria Jose Carneiro; Christophe Giraud; Pierre Labarthe; Frank Matose; Agnès Ricroch


Land Use Policy | 2016

How does commercialisation impact on the provision of farm advisory services? Evidence from Belgium, Italy, Ireland and the UK

Katrin Prager; Pierre Labarthe; Monica Caggiano; Altea Lorenzo-Arribas


Cahiers Agricultures | 2011

Économie des services et politiques publiques de conseil agricole

Pierre Labarthe; Catherine Laurent

Collaboration


Dive into the Pierre Labarthe's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Catherine Laurent

Institut national de la recherche agronomique

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Aurélie Trouvé

Institut national de la recherche agronomique

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Marianne Cerf

Institut national de la recherche agronomique

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Monica Caggiano

Institut national de la recherche agronomique

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Guy Faure

Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge