Mehmet Recai Uygur, Fatih Tekin, Fatma Sever and Samson Abiodun Toye

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain5010002

Politics in all regimes hinges on ordinary acts of obedience, yet the mechanisms that sustain it differ. This article theorizes “sustainable obedience” as obedience (i.e., rule-following and deference to collectively binding authority) that reproduces itself because ... Read More ... Read More Politics in all regimes hinges on ordinary acts of obedience, yet the mechanisms that sustain it differ. This article theorizes “sustainable obedience” as obedience (i.e., rule-following and deference to collectively binding authority) that reproduces itself because the marginal costs of monitoring and sanctioning are kept low by institutional and cultural feedback. We develop a dual-channel model: a fear channel (deterrence through selective coercion and information control) and a trust channel (procedural justice, impartial enforcement, and legitimacy) that interact through path dependence and habit formation. Mixed methods combine cross-national indices (V-Dem, Freedom House, World Values Survey) with comparative discourse and document analysis (2014–2025) to trace these mechanisms in three contrasting regimes: the Netherlands (liberal democracy), Turkey (competitive authoritarianism), and Russia (closed autocracy). Findings show trust-based obedience dominates in the Netherlands and is temporarily supplemented by proportionate deterrence during crises; Turkey institutionalizes a high and persistent fear architecture, with limited compensatory appeals to performance and electoral legitimacy; Russia sustains obedience primarily through multi-layered coercion and digital control backed by ideological narratives. We derive testable propositions about substitution and complementarity between channels and show how crises can normalize exceptional measures. Normatively, democratic resilience depends on renewing the trust architecture without entrenching fear; authoritarian resilience remains cost-effective yet ultimately fragile under information shocks. ... « or Access Full Article

Waleed Mugahed Al-Rahmi

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040019

Ga-won Song, Eunhwa Yang and Cheol-Jae Yoon

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040018

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

Kurt Orkun Aktaş, Ajda Zaim, Özlem Nur Aslantamer, Gözen Güner Aktaş and Hüseyin Emre Ilgın

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040016

Barbara Marchetti, Guido Castelli and Francesco Corvaro

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040015

Mehdi Hesam, Alfonso A. Vargas-Sánchez, Nima Moshiri Langroudi, Younes Saeedi Saraee and Zeynab Dargahi

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040014

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

Hocine Imine, Tarek Madani and Murad Shoman

https://doi.org/10.54175/hveh3020002