Search results

The conflict between institutionalism and neoclassicism in the 20th century has been investigated by scholars over the years. Many of them believe that in the postwar period, neoclassicism triumphed while institutionalism largely disappeared. The present chapter takes a very different view. The late 20th century represents a broad synthesis of neoclassical and institutional themes in a methodology we call pragmatic empiricism. That approach combines the mathematical model building and theoretical formalism of neoclassical economics with the institutional economist’s data-driven statistical analysis and concern for developing institutional forms. We use as a case study the history of American locational economics from the 1930s to the present. The mixing of institutional and neoclassical themes is quite evident in the work of three young scholars at Harvard who effectively initiated American locational economics. In the postwar period, we find a series of outstanding, well-published papers that capture the spirit of the “founders.” These papers do use more modeling, but they also focus on major institutional developments. A broader review of locational works is consistent with the pragmatic empiricism label. The history of locational economics supports the claim that institutionalism, far from disappearing, continues to provide fundamental questions and techniques for modern pragmatic empiricism.

Hazard warning schemes provide efficient hazard recognition and promote project safety. Nevertheless, these schemes perform poorly because the warning information is calibrated for individual characters and is not prioritized for the entire system. This study proposes a hazard warning scheme that prioritizes hazard characters from the inspection process based on the inspectors' experience.

First, hazard descriptions were decomposed into their characters, forming a double-layer network. Second, warning schemes based on cascading effects were proposed. Third, character-based warning schemes were simulated for various experiences.

The results show that when a specific hazard is detected, the degree centrality is the most effective parameter for prioritization, and hazard characters should be prioritized based on betweenness centrality for experienced inspectors, whereas degree centrality is preferred for novice inspectors.

The warning scheme theoretically supplements the information-processing theory in construction hazard warnings and provides a practical warning scheme with priority for the development of automated hazard navigation systems.