Imagining a Just and Sustainable Society: A Critique of Alternative Economic Models in the Global Justice Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines diverse visions of an alternative society articulated by individuals and groups in the Global Justice Movement (GJM). It finds that many dissenters of globalization tend to converge on the idea that localization, economic descaling and political devolution would foster social conditions favourable to a just and sustainable society. Critiquing this idea, this article identifies a number of foreseeable problems associated with a descaled, localized economy with a decentralized political structure. With a notable silence on the issue of the movement of people, local-centred economic models may provide an ecological ground for anti-immigration and trade protectionism of the rich countries. Small-scale farming and small scale eco-technology are far too inadequate to meet the food and energy needs of the populace in huge urban areas. Given the fast growing rate of urbanization globally, localizers must address the issue of how to go about restructuring the economy without infringing on people’s occupational aspirations and their preference for certain modes of living (rural or urban). In short, the presumed positive correlation between a descaled local economy and social justice is challenged throughout the article.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".