GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE TALIBAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), also known as the Taliban, took over Afghanistan in August 2021 after a rapid military campaign. Unlike the first Taliban regime (1996–2001) that took power when the state was in ruins during the civil war that erupted after the USSR left the country, the second Taliban administration inherited a reasonably well-developed civil service, the first of its kind in the country's history with modern budgeting, accounting, reporting, and digitalization systems, that played an essential role in modernization, including advancing women's rights. The Taliban have taken the state apparatus as an instrument of their governance approach, which is rooted in their specific religious ideology. This paper explores the Taliban's governance strategies and theocratic control mechanisms and their implications for public administration and economic development. Through a literature review, document analysis, and interviews with Afghan civil servants, this study explores civil service structure, remuneration, leadership, funding priorities, revenue collection, and the role of NGOs and humanitarian aid. The findings shed light on the challenges faced by the Taliban in fostering a viable economy within the constraints of a theocratic regime with limited governance capacities and no clear development strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".