経済環境論問題【1 - 名古屋大学 · iour of poor people in coping with and surviving...

環境学研究科社会環境学専攻平成30年度入学試験問題博士後期課程専門科目

経済環境論分野（1枚中1）

経済環境論問題【1】あなたがこれまでに修士課程等で行ってきた研究の概要を述べなさい。


環境法政論分野（6枚中1） Academic Field: Environmental Law and Politics (1/6)

環境法政論問題【1】 (Environmental Law and Politics: Question 1) What are the policy lessons that can be drawn from the case study below? Write your views in 300 words in English.

----------------------- PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AT LOCAL LEVEL: THE CASE OF SURABAYA CITY

【著作権保護のため本文は割愛】




Source: Gilby, S., Hengesbaugh, M., Gamaralalage, P.J.D., Onogawa, K., Soedjono, E.S. and

Fitriani, N. (2017)Planning and Implementation of Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategies at Local Level: the Case of Surabaya City. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. (Modifications have been made to the original text for this examination.)


社会学分野（3枚中1）

社会学問題【1】 1 以下の語句について簡潔に説明しなさい。

（a）アクターネットワーク理論（actor-network theory）（b）相対的剥奪（relative deprivation）（c）偏差平方和（sum of squares）（d）マスターナラティブ（master narrative）（e）フリーライダー問題（free rider problem）（f）ベーシックインカム（basic income） 2 潜在的機能と顕在的機能について、定義を説明した上で、具体的事例を挙げて社会学的に論じなさい。



社会学問題【2】以下の文章を読んで、設問1〜5に答えなさい。




【著作権保護のため本文は割愛】出典：Peter Hedström, Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology, Cambridge University Press, 2005.一部改変。設問 1 下線部(a)を和訳しなさい。 2 下線部(b)について、なぜ筆者がそのように考えるのかを説明しなさい。 3 下線部(c)を和訳しなさい。 4 下線部(d)のように考えられるのはなぜか説明しなさい。 5 本文をふまえ、社会学における descriptionsと explanationsの違いについて、具体例を挙げて説明しなさい。


地理学分野（6枚中1）

地理学問題【1】以下のA〜Cの中から１問を選択して解答しなさい。 A 次の問１と問２の両方に解答しなさい。問1 下の英文を全訳しなさい。固有名詞は原語をそのまま使用してもよい。

出典：Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. p. 165より抜粋

The application of political ecology to indigenous knowledge starts by fo-cusing on the familiar political-economic divisions among the actors (interest groups or stalceholders), "divisions between international, national and local in-terests; between North and South; between science and pol_itics; official and folk; and power relations at the local level deriving from differences of class, ethnicity and gender" (Blaikie and Jeanrenaud 1996, 1).

Following Blaikie (1985), Colchester (1994), Long and Long (1992), and Blaikie and Jeanrenaud 0996), the complexity of traditional knowledge issues may be interpreted and made more comprehensible by considering that:

1 There exist different actors who relate in different ways to the resource in question;

2 The actors define knowledge, ecological relations, and resources in different ways and at different levels or geographic scales;

3 They bring to bear on these definitions their culture and their experi-ence; and

4 They will use different definitions in pursuit of their own "projects" or political agendas.

Kazuaki Hori

Kazuaki Hori

【著作権保護のため本文は割愛】菵



問2 下の論文をHousehold studiesとLivelihoods studiesの相違が分かるように

要約しなさい。固有名詞は原語をそのまま使用してもよい。

After the structural perspective of dependencia and neo-Marxism of the

1970s and 1980s, a more productive actor-oriented perspective was adopted in development studies. Like its predecessors, it emphasized inequalities in the distribution of assets and power, but it also recognized that people make

their own history and it even opposed the view that economic concerns are necessarily of primary importance. This new actor-oriented perspective was mostly interested in the world of lived experience, the micro-world of

family, network and community (Johnston, 1993: 229) and it drew attention to related issues such as poverty, vulnerability and marginalization. A micro-orientation became predominant, accompanied by a clear focus

on local actors, often households.

In household studies, increased attention was paid to household strategies

as a means of capturing the behaviour of low-income people. The concen-tration on households was considered useful for its potential to bridge the gap between micro-economics, with its focus on the atomistic behaviour of individuals, and historical-structuralism, which focused on the political

economy of development. The household also came into vogue in a more practical sense; it was considered a convenient unit for the collection of

empirical data. In contrast to the earlier tendency to conceive poor people as passive

victims, these household studies and, more specifically, the concept of household strategies, highlighted the active or even proactive role played

by the poor in'providing for their own sustenance despite their lack of access to services and to an adequate income'(Schmink, 1984: 88). Whereas

Oscar Lewis had introduced the culture of poverty in 1968 as'a set of deprivations that were perpetuated across generations, continually under-mining the capability of the poor to change their own situation'(Schmink,

1984: 87), it was increasingly acknowledged that poor people were able to

adapt or respond to changing circumstances. More specifically, household studies permitted the examination of differential responses to general struc-

tural conditions, as well as the analysis of changes specific to subgroups of the population. In Schmink's words:'In response to the opportunities and constraints defined by broad historical and structural processes, the

domestic mlit is conceived of as mediating a varied set of behaviours (for example, labour force participation, consumption patterns, and migration) that are themselves conditioned by the particular makeup of this most basic

economic entity'(ibid.: 87). Various types of household studies appeared in the 1980s. A large number

of these were conducted under the heading of'new household economics',

focusing on labour and land allocation and income strategies and using micro-economic household modelling as an explanatory tool. Subsequent household studies have used a variety of concepts, of which the most common were'survival strategies', although Long (1984) was already calling

them'livelihood strategies'. Survival studies were more sociologically than economically inspired and were mainly interested in the micro-social behav-

iour of poor people in coping with and surviving different types of crises,

Kazuaki Hori

Kazuaki Hori

【著作権保護のため本文は割愛】ৱ



出典：de Haan, L. and Zoomers, A. (2005). Exploring the frontier of livelihoods research. Development and Change 36(1): 27–47より抜粋

such as falls in prices, droughts and famines. Even though most of these studies started from the idea that households have a veneer of free choice,

they showed that household decisions are often made wit柘n'theconfines of limiting structural constraints, although families nevertheless operate with a

degree of relative autonomy'(Humphries, 1982, quoted in Schmink, 1984: 95). In a 1987 special issue of Development and Change, Guyer and Peters

arrived at the same conclusion. They also made specific reference to power relations, which makes their judgement equally valid for the present liveli-

hoods approach, as we shall show below. They wrote:

The major shortcoming of structural-functional aud economic approaches to the household is the neglect of the role of ideology. The socially specific units that approximate'house-holds'are best typified not merely as clusters of task-oriented activities that are organized in variable ways, not merely as places to live/eat/work/reproduce, but as sources of identity and social markers. They are located in structures of cultural meaning and differential power. (Guyer and Peters, 1987: 209)

While many household studies ended in rather pessimist conclusions, show-

ing how poor households were increasingly excluded from the benefits of economic growth and thus marginalized, in the early 1990s a new generation

of more optimistic household studies appeared, which approached house-holds from a livelihoods perspective and showed how people are able to

survive. In its optinusm, the livelihoods approach is an expression of the Zeitgeist,

but it is also a direct response to the disappointing results of former approaches

in devising effective policies to alleviate poverty, such as those based on

income, consumption criteria or basic needs. According to Appendini (2001: 24) the central objective of the livelihoods approach was'to search

for more effective methods to support people and communities in ways that are more meaningful to their daily lives and needs, as opposed to ready-made,

interventionist instruments'. Robert Chambers (at IDS) and Gordon Conway

(at IIED), themselves drawing upon insights from previous research on food security and agro-ecological sustainability, are widely acknowledged for having put livelihoods, then usually called'sustainable livelihoods', at centre

stage (Chambers and Conway, 1992). In a chronology of the development of the sustainable livelihoods approach, Solesbury (2003a) explains that the

1987 Bruntland Report (WCED, 1987), the Greening of Aid Conference at

the International Institute for Environment and Development in the same year, and the first Human Development Report in 1990 (UNDP, 1990) must be regarded as the direct predecessors of the Chambers and Conway paper.

Arce (2003: 202) argues that Chambers brilliantly embraced the momentum

of the enviromnental sustainability discussion, then at its height because of

the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development. He argues that

it was not sustainability, but security and income that represented Cham-bers'central issues for the development debate and that he consequently

turned the discussion on its head, re-interpreting sustainability as a matter

of trade-off for poor people between vulnerability and poverty. Whatever

the original intention, environmental issues did play a more prominent role in the livelihoods discussion in the 1990s than they do at present.

Kazuaki Hori

Kazuaki Hori




B 次の英文の内容を要約し、その内容に対するあなたの考えを述べなさい。ア）要約と

イ）考えに分けて記すこと。

出典: Lützeler, R. (2008). Population increase and "New-Build Gentrification" in central Tōkyō. Erdkunde 62(4): 287-299.

Net migration gains and physical restructuring of central urban areas are global phenomena. In the

West, t~ey are usuall_y put in the wider context of residenual gentrification, i.e. the physical and social upgrading of run-down neighborhoods. Prominent urban researchers such as SASKIA SASSEN (20012, 260— 261) and PETER MARCUSE (1989; 1993) regard gentri-fication as a key element in the process of growing social fragmentation of metropolises, since they con-tend that it is supported by五gh-incorneprofession-als, managers and other groups whose numbers have risen due to丘1creasingeconomic globalization. In his book The New Urban Frontier (1996), NEIL SM「!"IIgoes one step further and even denounces the U.S. urban gentrification of the 1980s as a "revanchist" displacement strategy. He argues that this strategy was deliberately puxsued by private capital interest groups and an entrepreneurial urban policy against ethnic minorities and other socially disadvantaged groups in order to recreate an urban center that would be acceptable for high-income residents and business investors. Regarding the physical aspects of neigh-borhood upgrading, it has recently been observed that gentrification no longer manifests itself in small-scale old housing restoration carried out by individu-als only, but that it increasingly appears in the form of comp.reheosive oeighbo.rhood .redevelopment projects, projects that are pursued by large corporate developers and actively supported by public actors (HACKWOR'J'IJ and s~-u叶I 2001, 467—468) . • -¥ccording to another -slightly older -line of argumentation, which focuses more on the demand side of the real estate market, gentrilicauon is tnterpreted as a result of societal plu.ralization and emancipation. Thus, young, single professionals (female singles in partic-ular) or younger couples without children flee or stay a,vay from the suburbs, which are dominated by nu-clear families and th血 fixedgender roles, in order to live in attractive city center locations devoid of social control and close ro places of work and consump-tion (CAULFIELD 1989; WARDE 1991; ..--¥usc11 1993). It has to be admitted, though, that this interpretation, which has also become known by the catchword of the "emancipatory city", indu<les a displacement of former residents too -at least implicitly.

In Japan, the discourse on recent re-u.rbaniza-tion紅endsbas, until now, been much less domi-nated by references co gentrification. Instead, mass media in particular convey the picture of a return (toshin kaikt) of the suburban general middle classes into the city center, a retu.rn that would thus .revi-talizc the city center to the satisfaction of eve1-yone (cf. SHIMIZU 2004). Furthermore, it has been stressed

that Japanese re-urbanization is largely based on new high-rise building complexes constructed mainly on abandoned industrial ot食 railwaysites. This has been attributed to the fact that, since in Japan property rights on land are highly fragmented and hard to buy off or expropriate, redevelopment projects in preex-iscing residential districts usually take many years or even decades to complete (SoNOBE 2001, 209—211). For this reason, and also because many local govern-ments have so far followed a strategy of including at least some housing for low-income groups in new redevelopment projects (Hour-: ・2000,331—352), the existence of Wcsrern-scyle gentrification in Japanese cities -and with it che displacement of poorer popu-lation segments -has been I紅 gelydenied.

In a paper published in 2005, however, D,w I oso and L皿 shaveconvincingly shown that the upgrad-ing of central urban districts by new, stylish hous-ing comple.xes on abandoned sites, a trend that has become widespread throughout the industrialized world since the 1990s, can very well be regarded as a special case of gentrification. They argue chat the urbane new middle classes support such a 11ew-b11ild gen°:ification just as much as the classic form of old housmg restoration, and that the process is usually pushed fo!¥vard by an actor coalition of corporate developers, local governments and architects. To be sure, DAVIDSON and LEES admit rhat new-build gen-trificacion can cause displacement of lower-income groups as well -albeit induectly and in the long run -either by stimulating an increase in real estate prices of the surrounding areas or by altering the so-cio-cultural ambience of the neighborhood. _-¥nd al-though abandoned industrial sites are the main locus of new-build gentrification, it can also be found in pree: ヽistingresidential districts (DAVIDSON and LEES 2005, 1168—1170; Lr-:r.s et al. 2007, 139—141)

Kazuaki Hori

Kazuaki Hori

Kazuaki Hori




C 次の英文はある論文の序章の一部である。この英文を日本語に要約し、その内容に対

するあなたの考えを述べなさい。ア）要約とイ）考えに分けて記すこと。固有名詞は

原語をそのまま使用してよい。

Agricultural intensification, involving the use of agricultural inputs to produce more food on a given area of land, has dramat-ically increased food production (Pingali, 2012). However, many people remain hungry (Godfray et al.. 2010) and intensification has resulted in extensive negative environmental consequences (Matson et al.. 1997; Tilman et al 2002) . Sustainable mtens1fica-tion (SI) has been gaining attention in policy discussions as a means to simultaneously address food security and environmental secu-rity. The SI approach has been proposed as the primary means to feed a growing population (Godfray et al.. 2010), yet specifics of the types of technology development and transfer that are meant by this term have been few and far between in recent calls for its global expansion (Beddington et .;ii., 2012; Tilman et al., 2011). To date SI remains a policy goal for both national and international institutions but has yet to materialize into implemented policies. This study examines how SI is understood by agricultural experts and assesses its usefulness as a framework to guide future policies aimed at addressing food demands and environmental externalities associated with intensive agricultural production.

How do we feed the world while protecting natural resources and e!lvironmental services such as clean water and air? This rep-resents one of the most pressing problems facing society today. The increase in global population, expected to double by 2050, poses a serious challenge to agriculture. Researchers have developed tra-jectories that show the tremendous impact on the environment that would be associated with expanding agricultural production areas using current management practices (Tilman et al.. 2011). Overall, agriculture's global footprint is already immense (Burney et al., 201 O; Fischer et ,1I., 2008). Agriculture represents a significant land use globally, with major implications for reactive nitrogen and global carbon budgets (Tilman et al.. 2002). Expanding agricultural production poses a significant threat to biodiversity (Chappell and La Valle. 2011). In addition, the environmental footprint from row crop production is increasing, as globalization and biofuel markets are driving further intensification and reduced diversity in conven-tional row crop production (Billeter et al., 2008; I<han and Hanjra, 2009).

SI has been put forward as a means to simultaneously address the goal of enhancing agricultural production while conserving and protecting the environment. Promoted by Pretty in the 1990s (Pretty, 1997) it has received increasing attention recently, par-ticularly in the arena of international agricultural development (United Nations, 20'12). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2012), the Consultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research (Beddington et al., 2012), the National Academy of Sciences (Kornegay et al., 20 IO), and other organizations have pro-moted SI as a necessary approach to food production in the 21st century. These include government agencies (USA ID, 2012), as well as foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who

Kazuaki Hori

Kazuaki Hori

【著作権保護のため本文は割愛】菵



出典 Petersen, B. and Snapp, S. (2015). What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts. Land Use Policy 46: 1-10.

recently provided 30 million Pounds "to develop new technologies for use by small farmers that will accelerate sustainable intensifi-cation" (DFID 2012). Recent high-profile publications highlight SI as a means to meet the rising global food demand, yet the technolo-gies involved are not described in any detail, nor are the organizing principles for the approach specified (Godfray et al.. 2010; Tilman et al.. 2011). A prime example is the 2013 Montpellier Panel Report, which presents SI as a'new paradigm for agriculture in Africa.' H_owever, the report uses SI as a catchall for a wide array of agri-cultural production systems and does not provide policy-makers and farmers with guidance on the way forward. Organic agriculture and conservation agriculture are presented as equivalent means to achieve SI in the Montpellier Report, yet they differ markedly in terms of reliance on external chemical inputs. Overall, no priori ti-zation principles are presented. Documents such as this raises the concern level regarding the lack of consensus around the definition of SI, and could lead to conflicting public policies (Latawiec et al., 2014), and ill-defined outcomes.

Organizations and researchets have embraced the term SI, yet it remains unclear what practices and theory are encompassed by the term. Indeed, the diversity of SI descriptions in the literature (discussed below) highlights the lack of consistency in the scien-tific epistemology and application of the term. Recently, Garnett et al. (2013) state "SI denotes a goal but does not specify a pri-ori how it should be attained or which agricultural techniques to deploy." Despite the attention SI has received, it remains unclear what it represents, how to employ it, or how it differs from existing agricultural practices. Similar critiques have recently been levied at sustainability broadly, including some calling for the "end of sus-tainability" as the term no longer serves as a useful governance or policy goal (Benson and Craig, 2014).

To better understand the scope and meaning of SI to different actors, we interviewed researchers with agricultural and SI exper-tise to see how the term was defined, what it entails, and whether SI is viewed as appropriate or necessary to meet global food needs in the future. Despite the calls for SI by international policy makers, we find that there is ambiguity about what SI means, and that there may be significant limitations to pursuing SI to address global agri-cultural challenges. SI has many limitations, including that it is not theory based. This led us to seek out alternatives based in theory. That search brought to our attention aiternative frameworks such as ecological intensification (El) that are theory based. El calls for more specific and fundamental changes in agricultural production systems (Dore et al., 2011; Malezieux, 2012). At its core El strives to harness biological understanding to improve agricultural system performance, both in terms of productivity and environmental ser-vices (Bommarco et al., 2013; Dore et al., 201'1; Hochman et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2012). Given that alternatives exist, such as El, it remains an open question how effective SI is as a guide to supporting a sustainable pathway to food production around the globe.

Kazuaki Hori

Kazuaki Hori

【著作権保護のため本文は割愛】�

経済環境論 問題【1 - 名古屋大学 · iour of poor people in coping with and surviving...

Documents

経済環境論問題【1 - 名古屋大学 · iour of poor people in coping with and surviving...