Land, property rights, and planning in Japan: institutional design and institutional change in land management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although clearly a key institutional framework that structures planning systems, there has been remarkably little attention by planning historians to the comparative study of institutions of property rights in land as a factor shaping approaches to urban planning. Conversely, planning has clearly functioned as a key site of institutional innovation shaping the evolution of property rights. This relationship between planning and property rights deserves greater attention. Although property rights are often entrenched in written constitutions as is the case in both Japan and the USA, and do exhibit considerable continuity over time, they are in fact seldom static, being subject to evolving interpretations and constraints. This paper employs a historical institutionalist approach in the examination of the evolution of institutions of property rights in Japan during the modern period, from just before the Meiji Revolution of 1867–1868 to the early twenty‐first century. The paper shows that the strong protection of landed property rights in Japan is a product of the Meiji period, not the post‐Second World War occupation, and argues that institutional choices in framing landed property rights have multiple and varied long‐term impacts that may have little to do with the original policy goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".