Rethinking planning in post-colonial cities: Institutional hybridity, power, and conflict
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a framework of critical institutional hybridity as a theoretical lens for understanding urban planning in postcolonial contexts, where statutory and customary governance systems actively compete, overlap, and reshape urban landscapes. While mainstream planning typically seeks to harmonize these tensions, I argue that hybridity is not a dysfunction to be resolved but a structural condition planners must directly engage. Drawing insights from agonistic planning theory, I analyze the failed Kwabenya landfill project in Ghana to demonstrate how contestation, boundary negotiation, and institutional maneuvering fundamentally reshape planning outcomes. Instead of eliminating these hybrid dynamics, planners should focus on institutional designs that explicitly structure its contestation, thereby enhancing public accountability and enabling more adaptive governance.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it