Search

This paper deals with the management of settlement growth in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg from the perspective of informality. Luxembourg is subject to high demographic and economic growth pressures across all parts of the country (capital, old-industrialized South, rural North), which strongly challenges the current planning system. At the same time, there is no formal regional planning, apart from approaches of intermunicipal cooperation, which are mainly voluntary in nature. Drawing on empirical case studies in two high-growth municipalities (Junglinster, Schuttrange), the paper outlines planning decisions in the institutional triangle between municipality, state and private institutions. Informality serves here not only to compensate for a lack of planning control, but also to deal with the country's complex legal framework conditions. The vital interests of landowners come into play informally as well: since parts of the country's wealth emerge from the valorization of property, speculative interests are immanent, and thus block development processes. In this context, the paper addresses elements of a regional growth management that could close the gap that exists between state planning and municipal autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, growth coalitions and growth critiques are examined by using the example of in-migration policies in the context of Jena case study. This is based on the following questions: Which local growth coalitions do exist with which growth goals? To what extent do growth boundaries lead to an expansion of local growth coalitions with the urban hinterland? What kind of growth-critical positions are there in urban politics and to what extent do they question growth policies? The paper particularly ties in with the theoretical discussion of post-growth planning and enriches it by an empirical reflection by examining forms of municipal growth scepticism as well as limits of regional cooperation. The results show that there is a distinct growth coalition in Jena, which pursues the goal of attracting skilled workers to secure economic growth. However, due to natural growth limits and the resistance of individual residents, in-migration policies are reaching their limits, so that intermunicipal cooperation in the urban region is being sought as a fallback solution. Explicit critiques of growth and a fundamental public discussion about growth policies, on the other hand, just begin to emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts und Unternehmensethik is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When, how and why did the expectation of exponential economic growth emerge historically? This article explores this question through a transnational historical analysis of economic and policy-making expertise within the debates of the industrialized countries' think tank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its predecessor, the OEEC. It focuses in particular on the setting of growth targets in the years 1952, 1961, and 1970. These targets not only illustrate the escalatory logic of exponential growth but also highlight the changing concepts, justifications, and implications that mark the (re-) making of the economic growth paradigm at key junctures in postwar history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2008, the term „resilience" has been used in the concept papers of the OECD-DAC and by several other development actors that deal with problems concerning the development-security nexus. In particular, the concept was recently discussed and applied in discussions on possible developmental responses to so-called „fragile states" or „fragile situations". Going beyond the problem of „fragility", the term „resilience" offers a radical perspective on the development-security nexus itself. It represents the expansion of development policy into a truly global enterprise, linked with global and cross-acting threats; it highlights interconnectedness and, at the same time, the separate threats and responsibilities of all. Moreover, the concept expresses a specific post-liberal rationality. „Resilience", in this sense, can be seen as the overcoming of the liberal contradiction between security and freedom, which dissolves the autonomy of individuals in the necessity of continuous threat-driven adaptation. In turn, „resilience" could become a positive- sounding description of what is actually a post-liberal safety phenomenon. It could become a substitute for the possibility of freedom in the global context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]