ISLAMIC INSTITUTIONS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS: THE CASE OF THE 'PUBLIC GOOD' WAQF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper examines the institutional economic performance of the public good waqf with the intent of demonstrating the relevance of institutions to the momentous debate over Islamic backwardness and European progress and the waqf's role as supporter of learning institutions and promoter of social integration. Through the application of two sets of theoretical paradigms designed for measuring institutional behaviour, property rights and institutional arrangements, to legal cases supplied by fatwās from North Africa and Muslim Spain it will be possible to analyze and evaluate the impact of one of the major institutions of the premodern Islamic world on economic progress. L'article étudie la performance économique du waqf fiduciaire public, (waqf khairī), en tant qu'institution économique. Le but est de démontrer la pertinence de cette performance quant au débat sur la décadence économique des sociétés musulmanes par rapport au progrès que connut l'Europe. Sera étudié le rôle de l'activité économique institutionelle du waqf en général, et particulièrement dans les fonctions qui lui étaient attribuées, comme le soutien des institutions scolaires ainsi que la promotion de l'integrité sociale. Par l'application de deux paradigmes théoriques conçues pour mesurer le comportement institutionel, les droits de propriété et l'adaptation aux changements dans les conditions économiques rapportés par les documents juridiques tels les fatwās de l'Afrique du Nord et de l'Espagne musulmane, il sera possible d'analyser et d'évaluer l'impact de l'une des plus importantes institutions du monde islamique pré-moderne sur le progrès économique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".