Institutions and Sustainable Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The escape from divine revelation since the Enlightenment has been paralleled by a rise in the worship of science and technology, promoted by the material success of the Industrial Revolution, which in some countries bred for a short time central economic planning, which eventually withered away. As the flight gathered speed, there has been a revival of the ancient cult of species worship, in which the unintended consequences of materialism finally cause an awareness that the existence of the human species is under threat. Sustainable development is in this light the contemporary political and eschatological question for everyone. Central to the question of sustainable development is not only science and technology which, by itself, produces only summary statements on how physical entities are related. It does not provide methods of how human inputs are to be used in conjunction with these physical entities by appropriately applying the results of technology in generating outputs. It also does not address issues on how the outputs of the combination of technology and human resources ought to be valued. Last, it does not address how existing technologies can be combined, further modified, and developed into an institutional environment for continuous experiments and improvements. (Lai and Lome, 2003, vii) Hundreds of papers and books have been written on sustainable development and planning, but few have focused on the significance of institutions. The papers collected in this special issue reflect on the question of institutions in the promotion of planning for sustainable development from a number of value positions. While the theoretical perspectives and emphasis of the authors are different, there are many similarities. First, they share the view that the question of institutional arrangements cannot be ignored in a meaningful inquiry into sustainability. second, real life examples are used to demonstrate the arguments involved. These examples are those from such countries as the UK, Demark, USA, Canada, and Israel. Third, the concept of transaction costs underpins four out of the five papers, reflecting a growing influence of neo-institutional economics informed by the ideas of Ronald H. Coase in planning theory. Fourth, there is no dispute that consensus and mutual agreement is significant in shaping solutions that are sustainable. To the faithful, this consideration is but one step next to the concept of a covenant between God and man forgotten in contemporary articulation of private property. With reference to three examples, namely military base closures in the US Congress, Amsterdam metropolitan-regional governance, and the national statutory planning system in Israel, the work of Alexander seeks to offer a typology of institutional design normatively understood as being involved in all intentional institutional transformations, both innovative and evolutionary. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".