Stephan Soklaridis, Andrea Reisdorf and Sebastian Kummer

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain5010004

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

John C. G. Lee, Yeney Widya Prihatiningtias, Febryanti Simon and Samantha Siu Ling Lee

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain5010001

Indonesia’s National Free Meals Programme (NFMP) faces systemic challenges of fragmented implementation across agricultural, educational, and logistical sectors. These systemic challenges are compounded by inequitable reach in its archipelagic geography, where rural infrastructure gaps exacerbate disparities. ... Read More ... Read More Indonesia’s National Free Meals Programme (NFMP) faces systemic challenges of fragmented implementation across agricultural, educational, and logistical sectors. These systemic challenges are compounded by inequitable reach in its archipelagic geography, where rural infrastructure gaps exacerbate disparities. This study examines these issues through an integrated theoretical framework—combining Policy Transfer, Multi-stakeholder Governance, and Sustainable Livelihoods theories—using a mixed-methods approach that synthesises global policy benchmarks, peer-reviewed literature, and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) alignment metrics. Key findings identify governance fragmentation, supply chain inefficiencies (notably 15–20% food spoilage in eastern regions), and digital divides as critical constraints. The research proposes a three-tiered intervention framework: (1) geospatially tailored procurement mechanisms; (2) incentivised corporate partnerships for cold-chain infrastructure; and (3) co-created R&D for climate-resilient crops. These strategies synergistically advance SDG 1 (Poverty Reduction), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 4 (Quality Education), demonstrating potential for farmer income gains, reduced child stunting, and improved school attendance. The study contributes to theoretical debates on adaptive policy transfer and offers Indonesia a scalable blueprint for integrated food-security transformation in archipelagic contexts. ... « or Access Full Article

Waleed Mugahed Al-Rahmi

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4040019

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

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

Larry Dwyer

https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain4030012

Across the social sciences, wellbeing measures are being developed to cover a more comprehensive picture of factors contributing to quality of life. However, ongoing neglect of the wellbeing outcomes of tourism activity has restricted the relevance ... Read More ... Read More Across the social sciences, wellbeing measures are being developed to cover a more comprehensive picture of factors contributing to quality of life. However, ongoing neglect of the wellbeing outcomes of tourism activity has restricted the relevance of much tourism research, practice and policymaking globally. These include failure to recognise human wellbeing as the primary aim of any industrial development, including tourism; adherence to a superficial conception of the nature of wellbeing and its measures; a failure to acknowledge that human wellbeing, beyond “needs”, is an essential component of sustainable development; tourism stakeholder adherence to a primarily static, rather than dynamic conception of sustainability; failure to distinguish between “weak” and “strong” sustainability; uncritical adoption of a pro-growth mindset that is steadily depleting and degrading the resources and the wellbeing of life on the planet; failure to incorporate wellbeing outcomes into tourism business mission statements; and failure to treat seriously the need for tourism degrowth at least for some sectors of the industry. To address such failures, tourism decisionmakers must incorporate stakeholder wellbeing outcomes into conceptual analysis, empirical research and policy assessment. ... « or Access Full Article