MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768155625 · doi:10.1515/ldr-2017-0040

Path Dependence, Abnormal Times and Missed Opportunities: Case Studies of Catastrophic Natural Disasters From India and Nepal

2017· article· en· W2768155625 on OpenAlexaff
Kanksha Mahadevia Ghimire

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Law and Development Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJapan International Cooperation AgencyWorld Bank Group
KeywordsAcknowledgementNatural disasterDenialPolitical sciencePath dependenceDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPublic administrationPolitical economySociologyEconomicsGeographyComputer securityPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Path dependence literature largely accepts that large-scale disasters trigger abnormal times that weaken path dependence and create windows of opportunity to bring about institutional reforms. Disaster literature insists that lessons must be learnt from past disasters, so that damage caused by future disasters can be mitigated. Yet experience suggests that institutional reforms are rarely implemented post catastrophic disasters. This paper examines factors that might explain why the windows of opportunity triggered by disasters are missed in some cases, while seized in others. This question is explored by juxtaposing two case studies: the Gorkha 2015 earthquakes (Nepal) and the Uttarakhand 2013 flood (India), the worst natural disasters to have struck the regions. Analyzed through the insights of path dependence, the case studies reveal that post disasters institutional reforms were implemented in Nepal, aimed at improving implementation of building construction and zonal laws by public institutions. However, no such institutional reforms were implemented in India, specifically Uttarakhand. A comparative analysis identifies similarities and differences in actions taken by public institutions before and after the disasters aiming to improve public institutions’ implementation of laws, to explore factors explaining the contrasting outcomes. The paper reveals key distinctions highlighting the critical role of (a) gradual reforms taken during normal times and its influence on actions taken during abnormal times; and (b) negative feedback provided by public institutions responsible for implementing building construction and zonal laws (implementing agencies), and by other public institutions, and denial or acknowledgement of such critique by implementing agencies. Based on the findings, the paper elaborates policy suggestions that may aid in mitigating the possibility of abnormal times repeatedly becoming missed opportunities. More specifically, this paper provides a starting point for exploring what might be done during normal times so that when disasters do occur in the future, these opportunities can be seized and used to bring about reforms to improve public institutional functioning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Law and Development ReviewSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207