Aivars Spilbergs, Biruta Dzērve, Sandra Ozoliņa, Gunta Innuse-Breidaka, Tatjana Mavrenko, Laima Čable, Agnese Vincēviča, Biruta Sloka, Ginta Tora and Kristīne Liepiņa

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040017

This study examines the primary risks associated with using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in social science research and proposes a framework for higher education institutions to effectively manage these risks. As universities increasingly integrate GAI into ... Read More ... Read More This study examines the primary risks associated with using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in social science research and proposes a framework for higher education institutions to effectively manage these risks. As universities increasingly integrate GAI into teaching, research, and administration, concerns around intellectual property, academic integrity, data privacy, and ethical use have intensified. This paper explores the adequacy of current legal frameworks in addressing these challenges, drawing on recent legal analyses and institutional practices. Survey data reveal statistically significant differences in perceptions of the need for GAI guidelines based on respondents’ age, education level, field of study, research experience, and geographic region. The findings underscore the urgency of developing adaptive, risk-based policies that support responsible integration of GAI while safeguarding academic standards. The study concludes by proposing guiding principles for a dynamic legal framework that balances innovation with accountability. These recommendations aim to support sustainable and ethical GAI adoption in higher education institutions and contribute to the broader discourse on responsible AI governance in academia. ... « or Access Full Article

Barbara Marchetti, Guido Castelli and Francesco Corvaro

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040015

Jesús Huerta de Soto, Antonio Sánchez-Bayón and Philipp Bagus

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040013

This paper reviews the efficiency and sustainability of the management model during the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. There is a comparison between the centralized bureaucratic management versus the agile market alternative or spontaneous and flexible social ... Read More ... Read More This paper reviews the efficiency and sustainability of the management model during the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. There is a comparison between the centralized bureaucratic management versus the agile market alternative or spontaneous and flexible social coordination. This is a study of Political Economy, Management, and Health Economics from the perspective of Austrian economics, with special attention to the Spanish case. The analysis is based on Mises theorem about the impossibility of economic calculation under centralized coactive systems, and other economic principles. In this context, we also pay attention to collateral problems of the centralized and coactive management. Finally, we propose a solution based on dynamic efficiency and the constitutions of wellbeing economics based on digitalization. ... « or Access Full Article

Noha Emara, I-Ming Chiu and Sheila Warrick

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4030011

Enrique Javier Díez Gutiérrez, Luisa María García Salas, Sara Aguilar Moya, Kelly Romero Acosta, Antonio Pérez Robles, José Jesús Trujillo Vargas, Ignacio Perlado Lamo de Espinosa and Luis Miguel Mateos Toro

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4020007

Martin Wynn and Peter Jones

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4020006

Phoenix Eskridge-Aldama, Aden Stern, Anna Vaughn and Diana Stuart

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4020005

As global temperatures continue to rise, those in favor of rapid climate mitigation face critical questions regarding maintaining current levels of economic growth. On a global scale, there remains a clear positive correlation between economic growth ... Read More ... Read More As global temperatures continue to rise, those in favor of rapid climate mitigation face critical questions regarding maintaining current levels of economic growth. On a global scale, there remains a clear positive correlation between economic growth and carbon emissions, leading many climate scientists to call for a move away from a growth-focused economy. In this article, we draw from recent research to compare possible outcomes in terms of social well-being and climate mitigation for green growth and degrowth pathways. Green growth aims to maintain economic growth while reducing carbon emissions. Degrowth calls for a purposeful contraction of economic growth in wealthy countries. Drawing from recent studies, we compile evidence to compare these pathways and assess how each of these key strategies is evaluated and framed in the literature. We find that research indicates clear differences between these pathways in terms of mitigation potential and risks to human welfare, and we call for future research on specific topics related to a degrowth transition. Additionally, we identify issues of feasibility as primary concerns within both paradigms. ... « or Access Full Article

Assitan Diaby, Mehdi Seraj and Huseyin Ozdeser

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4010004

Anna C. Schomberg, Clemens Mostert and Stefan Bringezu

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4010003