Institution building and institutional voids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a comparative analysis of institutions and institutional voids in Russia, Brazil, and Poland over the decades of the 1980s through to 2015. The paper asserts that Russia and Brazil could learn much from Poland regarding formal institution building and formal institutional voids that cause problems like corruption and limit economic growth. Design/methodology/approach – A comparative case study approach is utilized to assess the relative success of the three emerging market countries in transitioning to a market economy, viewed through the lens of institutional theory. Findings – Poland’s experience in building successful formal institutions and mitigating major institutional voids can be instructive for Russia and Brazil which have shown far less success, and correspondingly less sustained economic growth. Research limitations/implications – This paper demonstrates the value of applying institutional theory to analyze the progress of emerging economies in transitioning to a market economy. Practical implications – This country comparison can prove valuable to other emerging economies seeking a successful transition to a market economy. Social implications – Since institutions are the fabric of any society, the emphasis on institutions in this paper can have positive implications for society in emerging markets. Originality/value – This paper is an original comparison of two BRIC countries with a smaller emerging economy, utilizing institutional theory. Factors contributing to Poland’s success are compared to Russia and Brazil to assess how those countries might be positively informed by Poland’s experience in building and strengthening sustainable formal institutions as well as avoiding institutional voids and their associated problems.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".