Search results

Peter Boettke and I had taken Don Lavoie's graduate Comparative Economic Systems course during the Fall of 1985. Lavoie had just published Rivalry and Central Planning (Lavoie, 1985b) and National Economic Planning: What is left? (Lavoie, 1985a), and was at the cusp of establishing himself as a major player in the comparative systems and contemporary critique of socialist planning literature.¹

It is undeniable that proper planning of spatial development and local regional policies are paramount to ensure whether a country is prosperous or not. In order to ensure its prosperity, discussion on administrative arrangement, spatial development, and regional policy issues in the Malaysian context will be focused. In addition, the importance of Malaysian major development policies and the authorities responsible for its development and implementation are highlighted, followed by the roles of urban development planning. Lastly, Malaysian regional economic corridors, specifically the Northern Corridor Economic Region, are highlighted to show the emphasis given by the Malaysian Government on regional spatial development issues.

The American agricultural economist Marion Clawson advised the Israeli government during 1953–1955. Clawson, a protégé of John D. Black and Mordecai Ezekiel, criticized the government for ignoring economic considerations, and stated that Israel’s national goals – defense, Negev Desert irrigation, immigrant absorption via new agricultural settlements, and economic independence – were mutually contradictory. His major recommendations were to improve the realism of Israel’s agricultural plan; end expensive Negev irrigation; enlarge irrigated farms eightfold; freeze new settlements until the number of semi-developed settlements falls from 300 to 100; and limit new Negev settlements to 10 over 5–7 years. Thus, Clawson ignored political feasibility and made value judgments. Minister of Finance Levi Eshkol and Minister of Agriculture Peretz Naphtali rejected Clawson’s recommendations because they ignored Israel’s national goals. By September 1954, Clawson shifted towards greater pragmatism: He acknowledged that foreign advisors should not question the national goals or make value judgments, and sought common ground with the Ministry of Agriculture. At his initiative, he wrote Israel Agriculture 1953/54 in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. Israel Agriculture was a consensus document: Clawson eschewed recommendations and accepted that the government might prioritize non-economic goals. In proposing Israel Agriculture, Clawson made a pragmatic decision to relinquish some independence for (potentially) greater influence. Ultimately, Clawson was largely unsuccessful as an advisor. Clawson’s failure was part of a general pattern: Over 1950–1985, the Israeli government always rejected foreign advisors’ recommendations unless it was facing a severe crisis.

This chapter provides a presentation about Chapter 1 of The Balance of the National Economy, 1923–24, edited by Pavel Illich Popov. The Balance was issued in June 1926 by the Central Statistical Administration (CSU or TsSU) of the USSR, which Popov had headed from July 1918 to January 1926. In the first part of our chapter, we show how Popov’s work on the balance of the national economy was rooted in the specific scientific and political culture of zemstvo statisticians inherited from the Tsar. Statistical inquiry was considered an objective scientific process based on international standards. Furthermore, like zemstvo statisticians, CSU statisticians developed great autonomous political power. The balance of the national economy was built according to these principles, which met harsh criticism from revolutionaries and Bolsheviks. In the second part, we analyze the contents of Popov’s Chapter 1, especially the theoretical foundations of the balance and its connection with Soviet planning. In the third part, we discuss the balance’s significance in the years 1926–1929, years which ended the NEP and launched the first Five-Year Plan, so as to understand how CSU’s balance didn’t become a standard Soviet statistical instrument and was discarded as a “bourgeois” device.

This chapter provides a comprehensive exploration of the pivotal role of family planning in advancing sustainable development goals (SDGs). It elucidates the intrinsic connection between family planning and sustainable development, scrutinizes the harmonization of family planning initiatives with SDG targets and indicators, gleans insights from global approaches, and identifies formidable challenges, with a particular focus on marginalized communities. This chapter culminates with a set of substantial recommendations aimed at surmounting these challenges and propelling SDG attainment through the prism of family planning.

Nowadays, the increase in the capacity of batteries has laid the foundations for a broader diffusion of electric mobility. However, electric mobility is causing a growing electricity demand as well as the need to increase the diffusion of suitable charging stations. Within these last challenges, drawing on the recent literature, this chapter provides a critical and wide-ranging review of papers dealing with the formulation of the problem of the localisation of electric vehicle (EV) charging points. This problem is approached considering the electric charging infrastructure technologies, localisation criteria and related methodologies. This review shows how the ‘electric mobility revolution’ applies the technological innovations provided by the energy supply systems, and the location of these systems within the urban contexts. Since the technological innovations have different options, achieving an international standard of charging systems is still far away. Moreover, as there are several criteria, parameters and methodologies, and some analytical approaches for the localisation of electric vehicle charging points, the formulation of the ‘localisation’ problem should require the application of multi-criteria analysis to be addressed. Finally, the results show that there is no consensus on technologies, criteria, and methodologies to be adopted. Therefore, this wide-ranging analysis of the literature would be useful to support possible benchmarking and systematisation accordingly.