Genève, Switzerland
Genève, Switzerland

Time filter

Source Type

The International Association of HealthCare Professionals is pleased to welcome S. Faye Snyder, PsyD to their organization of prestigious health care professionals and to direct readers to her upcoming publication in the Worldwide Leaders in Healthcare. Dr. Snyder trained as a Psychologist and Marriage and Family Therapist and specialized in trauma, family systems, parenting, attachment, relationship skills, personal ethics, forensic evaluations (especially accusations of parental alienation), and difficult cases. Dr. Snyder holds over twenty years of experience in her field and is currently practicing in Granada Hills, California, where she is the Founder and Clinical Director of the Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation (PaRC). Dr. Snyder graduated from the California Graduate Institute, now the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, becoming a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in 1992. She subsequently completed her postgraduate training as a clinical psychologist at Ryokan College of Psychology, and is trained or certified in Sex Offender Treatment, Anger Management, and Domestic Violence. Dr. Snyder became a researcher on the causes of psychopathology, including a debate she calls The War on the Researchers, between geneticists and neuroscientists. Dr. Snyder became concerned that the debate was unrecognized while there are two opposing messages in the field which are not being reconciled. As a result of 20 years researching the issue, she formulated The Causal Theory, in which she has take the best of the research and formulated a proposal on how personality and behavior are driven. Dr. Snyder attributes her success to a strong desire to share her concerns with researchers and other psychologists. Dr. Snyder previously taught developmental psychology at the California State University, Northridge. She is the author of six books, including The Manual: The Definitive Book on Parenting and the Causal Theory (2012) and her last book, The Search for the Unholy Grail: The Race to Prove that Personality and Behaviors Are Inherent (2016). Dr. Snyder stays current in her field by maintaining professional memberships, including the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the Los Angeles County Psychological Association, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, and the California Association of of Anger Management Professionals, of which she is the current vice president. For diversion, Dr. Snyder enjoys spending time with her young grandson. Learn more about Dr. S. Faye Snyder here: and and be sure to read her upcoming publication in the Worldwide Leaders in Healthcare.

News Article | February 15, 2017

The leadership at Cummings Graduate Institute for Behavioral Health Studies is proud to announce the launch of their new, interactive website featuring fresh content, easy navigation and a simple online admissions process that will undoubtedly have a positive impact on new students. As they gear up for second semester enrollment, Melissa McGurgan, Director of Student Services stated, “Our vision, for integrated care to become the norm rather than the exception, is a critical one. We know that for our vision to be realized, we must prepare innovators who have a drive to disrupt the norms in health care delivery; to pioneer into unexplored territory and establish truly patient-centered care models. Our graduates will be expected to get results, and we give our students the skills to exceed marketplace expectations.” At the Cummings Institute, the Biodyne model is the nucleus. The word Biodyne is composed of two classical Greek words; bio, meaning “life,” and dyne, meaning “change.” The goal of the Biodyne Model is life change. As an Institute, CGI strives for a “life change” – for their leadership and faculty, for their students, for their patients, for their providers, and for the health care system. Dr. Cara English, CEO for Cummings Institute also weighed in, stating, “One is never the same upon graduation. Through our Values, CGI demonstrates to our students, faculty, staff, partners, and larger community that we are a disruptive institution, aimed at making a difference for all those who interact with us.” Visit their new website and learn more about how CGI is #disruptinghealthcare. About the Founder Dr. Cummings is a visionary who, for half a century not only was able to foresee the future of professional psychology, but also helped create it. A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA) as well as its Divisions 12 (Clinical Psychology) and 29 (Psychotherapy), he formed a number of national organizations in response to trends. Since organized psychology resisted these inevitable changes, Dr. Cummings blazed the way, expecting others would follow. He launched the professional school movement by founding the four campuses of the California School of Professional Psychology that established clinicians as full-fledged members of the faculty. As chief of mental health for the Kaiser Permanente health system in the 1950s, he wrote and implemented the first prepaid psychotherapy contract in the era when psychotherapy was an exclusion rather than a covered benefit in health insurance. Presently, Dr. Cummings resides in Reno, Nevada with the one love of his life, Dorothy Mills Cummings. Together in 2015 they celebrated their 67th wedding anniversary. They maintain a winter home in Scottsdale, Arizona. He continues as Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno, and active president of the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health. He serves as the Vice Chair for the Board of Directors of Cummings Graduate Institute for Behavioral Health Studies.

News Article | October 27, 2016

Cummings Graduate Institute for Behavioral Health Studies, the only doctoral-level Institute dedicated to integrated behavioral healthcare, held its first Commencement Ceremony on Monday, December 7th, 2015, sending the inaugural class of five degree candidates out into the world as Doctors of Behavioral Health. Each new Doctor of Behavioral Health was presented with a white coat by Dr. Nicholas Cummings. NIBHQ provisional accreditation was granted to the Institute's DBH program in 2015.

Haines A.,London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | Alleyne G.,Pan American Health Organization | Kickbusch I.,Graduate Institute | Dora C.,Interventions for Healthy Environments Unit
The Lancet | Year: 2012

In 2012, world leaders will meet at the Rio+20 conference to advance sustainable development - 20 years after the Earth Summit that resulted in agreement on important principles but insufficient action. Many of the development goals have not been achieved partly because social (including health), economic, and environmental priorities have not been addressed in an integrated manner. Adverse trends have been reported in many key environmental indicators that have worsened since the Earth Summit. Substantial economic growth has occurred in many regions but nevertheless has not benefited many populations of low income and those that have been marginalised, and has resulted in growing inequities. Variable progress in health has been made, and inequities are persistent. Improved health contributes to development and is underpinned by ecosystem stability and equitable economic progress. Implementation of policies that both improve health and promote sustainable development is urgently needed. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

Liu H.-W.,Visiting Researcher | Liu H.-W.,Graduate Institute | Liu H.-W.,National Chengchi University
Journal of International Economic Law | Year: 2014

Voluminous studies have documented the rise of international standards and their ramifications for the World Trade Organization (WTO), though most of these studies have focused on environment, food safety, public health, and financial regulations issues. An equally important, yet less explored, area is the information and communications technology (ICT) industry. This article seeks to contribute to the literature by examining the concept of an international standard in the ICT industry and its implications for the WTO. Drawing upon empirical data, this article makes four claims. First, today, the WTO policymakers are facing a 'balkanized' standard-setting paradigm in the ICT sector. Global standard-setting in the ICT industry is no longer the sole domain of the 'Big Three': the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Numerous industry consortia, mostly based in the USA, have emerged on the scene and in some way compete with the Big Three. Second, this paradigm shift engenders intense legal and political interest among major trading partners in the WTO, namely the USA and the EU. Applying the current WTO jurisprudence to this new paradigm, this article suggests that certain consortia may qualify as 'international standardizing bodies' for the purpose of the WTO. To the extent that standards developed by these consortia are recognized by the WTO, firms operating outside the US-based standardizing environment would bear higher costs in global trade. Additionally, this article argues that, while the Big Three seeks to respond to evolving market demands, their structural changes undercut the legitimacy as an international standardizing body. Fourth, intellectual property in the ICT standard-setting context is an eminent threat to the WTO. Ambiguities in licensing rules of the standardizing bodies - be they the Big Three or the industry consortia - may provide loopholes for emerging economies moving up the global value chain to use selectively an international standard. © 2014 © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

News Article | November 17, 2015

Laura Diaz Anadon, Assistant Professor in Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and Visiting Senior Lecturer in Science, Technology, Innovation and Public Policy at the Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy at University College London, will present a public lecture on November 24 at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, Switzerland from 18:30 – 20:00. 1. What role can technological innovation play in moving society toward sustainable development? Technological innovation can play a central goal to achieving all 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals agreed by the governments of 193 countries in September 2015.  Innovation is both its own goal (#9), and key to addressing all other goals in a cost-effective manner.  For example, innovation in agricultural technologies can mitigate hunger (goal 2) and protect ecosystems (goal 15); innovation in water technologies can increase the availability of water and sanitation for all (goal 6) while helping conserve marine resources (goal 14); and innovation in energy technologies has the potential to ensure access to affordable and reliable energy (goal 7), to mention a few.  At the same time, technology also has the potential for great harm, as we see with the case of fossil energy technologies and global warming, or with the case of using antimicrobial drugs, which can build resistance and render them ineffective. So technological innovation poses both great opportunities and challenges. 2. What are the main challenges with respect to innovation in energy technologies? As part of a project with over 30 multidisciplinary researchers that started 4 years ago, we came up with four key challenges common to harnessing technological innovation for sustainable development that are not specific to energy. The first challenge is that technology innovation is a complex and non-linear process. It is complex in the sense that it does not only entail invention (or R&D) but it also entails experimentation in niche markets, adaptation, and widespread but also selection, adoption, adaptation and retirement. And it is non-linear in the sense that these processes are interlinked and widespread adoption can lead to insights that spur adaptation and further invention.  In practice this means that actors interested in utilizing innovation cannot limit themselves to one part of innovation. The second challenge partly stems from the first one. The wide range of activities that contribute to innovation almost always result in a multiplicity of actors, often acting at various levels.  Actors may include final users, local governments, local and transnational firms, national governments, and international organizations.  This means that coordination of actors and activities is a major challenge, as has been observed in cases such as cookstoves to replace traditional biomass for 1.7 billion people. The third challenge is that technologies are heterogeneous, so the partnerships, incentives and approaches that work to, for instance, residential solar panels are not the most appropriate for centralized power generation, for instance. In fact, our research has shown that there are often more commonalities between the processes that can support innovation in technologies across sectors than within sectors. To give an extreme and somewhat obvious example: a ceramic water filter is more similar to a cookstove than a carbon capture and storage plant in terms of the processes and mechanisms for moving from initial invention of these technologies through to widespread use. For this reason, its extremely valuable to learn across sectors and not only look at examples from energy for example. And fourth, people in low-income countries and poor people more generally have a lower ability to pay and thus exert less market-pull and political influence to guide innovation to meet their needs.  This is a major problem in the context of sustainable development. And to answer the question a little more specifically, I will also mention a challenge that may be more pressing in some parts of the energy sector.This more energy-specific challenge is that electricity or liquid fuels are commodities (unlike drugs that cure new diseases, for instance).  So for grid-connected  electricity, new technologies must compete with others that are not only creating  the same product, but also have multi-decadal lifetimes, and have a system of regulations and actors interested in preventing change. Moreover, the price of the incumbent technologies does not include the health and environmental costs it is imposing on society.  This presents an additional hurdle for some energy technologies. 3. Can you give us an example of a successful and of a non-successful adoption of energy technology by a developing country? This is a very difficult, and perhaps impossible question to answer.  Assessing success depends on the criteria used to measure success. If by success one refers to the emergence of a local manufacturing industry that exports internationally, then the case of solar PV manufacturing in China would be successful.  Interestingly, it is a case in which the central government played a relatively minor role at the beginning, as Christian Binz and I are showing in current work. If one refers to being at the forefront of science and technology in that particular area or pollution caused by the manufacturing process, then it the case of solar PV in China may not (at least as of now) be such a success. Similarly, the case of wind power in China and India shows the difficulty in talking about success without some qualification. In a paper with Kavita Surana we show that India and China both started promoting wind power development and manufacturing in the mid-1980s, although with very different approaches. India relied more on the private sector and China on state-owned enterprises.  Depending on the metric that one uses, one could conclude that one, the other, both or none were more successful. Our research showed that there are tradeoffs related to the type of actors engaged in the promotion of an industry, the timing and magnitude of resources mobilized, and reliance on domestic versus foreign resources. 4. What additional research is needed to better enable energy innovation? There is a breadth of experiences of policies or interventions across various sectors and technologies.  But to use these experiences there are several areas that still need investigation. First, it is very hard to determine what one can learn or transfer without a common framework to help us understand the process of technology innovation and the characteristics that make different technologies and circumstances comparable.  In our project we developed a model and conceptual framework aimed at supporting such comparative analysis, but much more work is necessary to test and refine this framework. Second, we know surprisingly little about the impact of various interventions within specific sectors and technologies.  For example, in the area of R&D investments, we know very little about the effectiveness of different type of mechanisms (grants, prizes, collaborative agreements, national labs) across different dimensions (fundamental discoveries and inventions, patents, spin-offs, publications, human capacity development, etc). Thus, program evaluation is an important area for future research.  There is emerging work even in the area of energy, including work by colleagues at the Kennedy School, but more is needed. Third, even though we know from research that technology users cannot be an ‘afterthought’, we need to better understand what types of partnerships with what resources are more effective at meeting the most pressing needs on the ground. A subset of this gap is our poor understanding of how different actors can promote invention and adoption of energy technologies that address the needs in developing countries, instead of relying on adapting existing technologies. The reason for this ‘invention’ gap is of course related to the lack of market pull and to some extent empowerment, but it is an unresolved problem. Fourth, through our multidisciplinary project we learnt about interventions that took place in health that were unknown to people in energy, and we discovered that some academic disciplines may have already done research in particular areas that other relevant disciplines or sectors may now know about. For example, behavioral economists has been active in energy, economists looking at intellectual property have been active in health. Innovation systems and historians scholars have looked at procurement in the case of defense and IT, etc.  Given the rewards posed on specialization, it is hard for scholars to know about all relevant literature. For practitioners the task is also daunting, without some way to digest the vast literature. 5. What can the policy community do about it? The policy community can work as the bridge builder between the research community and the technology users.  Given the wide range of actors and activities required for innovation in a particular technology to take place, coordination is a crucial role. In our work we have seen that, depending on their resources, different policy organizations can act not just as the funders of initiatives, but (among other topics) also as conveners of various actors, as providers of legitimacy, and as partners in collaborative efforts, as providers of information (which includes putting to use the results of research) to reduce transaction costs, etc. As we mentioned, there is little funding aimed at developing technologies to address specific needs in developing countries.  The policy community can also foster research along the lines mentioned above!  In summary, policy makers need to really grapple with how to re-orient innovation systems to better meet the needs of vulnerable populations including both the poor today and future generations who lack a voice in current innovation systems.

White N.,Graduate Institute
Journal of Political Ecology | Year: 2014

Since 2011, elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade have been labelled a "serious threat to peace and security". Rigorous military training and weapons have been provided to rangers, national armies have been deployed in protected areas, and shoot-to-kill policies have been (re-)adopted. Within the framework of political ecology, the article critically approaches this "war" for Africa's elephants. Adopting the tools of discourse analysis, it explores how such violence has been legitimized by the "transnational conservation community" and, in turn, how this has been contested by other actors. It argues that the "war" has been legitimized by drawing on two broader threat discourses - the ivory-crime-terror linkage and the 'China-Africa' threat. Through the discursive creation of a boundary object, poaching has 'become' a human concern that appeals to actors typically outside the conservation community. In the final Section, the case of the Lord's Resistance Army's poaching activities in Garamba National Park is explored, to show how the knowledge upon which judgements are made and decisions are taken is ahistorical, depoliticized and based on a series of untenable assumptions.

Effective civil society activism in the high politics realm of international peace and security has not received sustained scholarly attention, and, at least until recently, was considered a 'hard case,' compared to other issue areas. This article reviews recent civil society efforts and assesses, in a preliminary fashion, some of the preconditions and constraints on transnational civil society activism in a range of security issues, from antipersonnel landmines to antinuclear campaigns. It concludes that high levels of policy uncertainty, the possibility of issue reframing, significant resources, and strategic partnerships are all key ingredients for effective civil society engagement. Conversely, vague or diffuse goals, the absence of state engagement, and policy stovepipes, all stand as obstacles to transnational activism. © 2014 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dell'Erba S.,Graduate Institute | Hausmann R.,Harvard University | Panizza U.,Graduate Institute
Oxford Review of Economic Policy | Year: 2013

This paper studies the relationship between sovereign spreads and the interaction between debt composition and debt levels in advanced and emerging market countries. It finds that in emerging market countries there is a significant correlation between spreads and debt levels. This correlation, however, is not statistically significant in countries where most public debt is denominated in local currency. In advanced economies, the magnitude of the correlation between debt levels and spreads is about one-fifth of the corresponding correlation for emerging market economies. In eurozone countries, however, the correlation between spreads and debt ratios is similar to that of emerging market countries. The paper also shows that the financial crisis amplified the relationship between spreads and debt levels within the eurozone but had no effect on the relationship between spreads and debt in stand-alone countries. Finally, the paper shows that the relationship between debt levels and spreads is amplified by the presence of large net foreign liabilities. This amplifying effect of net foreign liabilities is larger in the eurozone than in stand-alone advanced economies. The paper concludes that debt composition matters and corroborates the original sin hypothesis that, rather than being a mere reflection of institutional weakness, the presence of foreign currency debt increases financial fragility and leads to suboptimal macroeconomic policies. © The Authors 2013. Published by Oxford University Press.

Vinuales J.E.,Graduate Institute
Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law | Year: 2013

Sustainable development is turning brownish. Too many disparate initiatives are being conducted under its banner. The concept of 'sustainable development' no longer provides an adequate umbrella for the main challenge currently faced by global environmental governance - namely implementation. Its very strengths are turning into fatal weaknesses. Vague enough to bring all States and other stakeholders to the negotiating table, the concept of 'sustainable development' was very successful in managing the political collision between 'development' and 'environment' throughout the 1980s and the 1990s. It was a formidable tool to find balance as well as for normative development. But it is inadequate to navigate the implementation phase. This article introduces an alternative model, based on four strategic priorities (participation, differentiation, decarbonization, and innovation and technology diffusion). It maps different levels at which these priorities could be pursued in order to make global environmental governance more effective. The article is not against the concept of 'sustainable development' as a worthy 'fight'. It is about the need to use another 'weapon' to spearhead efforts to meet the challenge of implementation. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Loading Graduate Institute collaborators
Loading Graduate Institute collaborators