Regulating capital investment in urban property: towards comparative-historical research in planning history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes three main contributions: First, we argue that spatial planning institutions have become fundamental ‘rules of the game’ regulating development and defining urban property rights, and that the differences of approach between places can best be explained as a product of historical processes of institutional development. Second, we introduce a historical institutionalist theory of contested institutional development based on concepts of critical junctures of major institutional change followed by reactive sequences of institutional contestation in strategic action fields. We outline a methodologically institutionalist research method designed to produce replicable comparative research of long-run processes of institutional change, based on historical narratives employing process-tracing of institutional change and examination of permissive and productive factors structuring such change. This approach generates clear research questions and supports causal analysis of processes and mechanisms of change in urban property systems to explain why current institutions take the form they do. Third we illustrate the theory and research method with the case of Toronto, a fast-growing city where property rights and obligations and development control regulations have been vigorously contested. The conclusions explore the implications for planning theory and for comparative-historical research of this analysis of institutional change processes and mechanisms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".