main index

P00: frame around

P01: olicognography

P03: infrastructures




Graph Start

Core n
Half complex graph








Social Projects

Basic Olicognograph: Social Sustainability Detailed

Social Globalization (not at good level of communities' complexity range)

With Social Projects and Globalization: "There are 4 groups of theories that variously explain basic principles of origin, further change and, sometimes, collapse of complex human social systems: 1) Various unilinear theories of development or evolution; 2) Theories of civilizations; 3) World-systems perspective; 4) Multilinear theories of social evolution. Observing for example an interpretation of the third kind (world-system) "I. Wallerstein identifies 3 modes of production: 1) mini-systems based on reciprocation, 2) redistributive world-empires, 3) capitalist world-system (world-economy) based on the commodity and money relations". This school see then the global processes of investment to the gauge of sort a process of civilization, imposing, at least, its tools and products throught strategies more or less directly (trade, geopolitics, extrations of ressources for transfers to core countries). Opinions to share or not to share; practical policies of projects are according more or less of all ingredients. At least, observing that in todays ecological global trends there are indeed a problem of civilization to assume or dismiss and when, without liable perfect solutions, abstain (least of wise solutions?).

Sort of trends in the same sort of explaination adapted to the macroissues of global environmental problems that we can measure: "Less-developed countries with higher levels of exports send to more-developed countries; exhibiting lower domestic levels of resource consumption, measured as per capita ecological footprints. Higher-consuming countries externalize their consumption-based environmental costs through the tapping of raw materials and produced commodities from less-developed countries, which tempers material consumption levels, thereby restricting the ecological footprints of the latter countries". For example, "deforestation at the macro level is best explained by considering effects of socio-demographic processes contextually, in terms of world-system dynamics. To embrace the universal principal of being “ecologically sound” in both places, would lead to very different practices in those places, because the same practices would have different outcomes, depending upon where they are implemented".

If facing those characteristics of globalization, even if our scale is more modest than macro-wide interpretation, there are macroinvestments determined by globalization (or macro-regionalization) confronting cultural local systems and social - technological issues to care. Confrontations may even been assumed so, as a philosophy of the group of power in charge of world policies. Confrontation to examine with the local frame be it, for example, a pastoralist society.This sort of society shows "3 levels of cultural integration of pastoral nomads are revealed, falling into an order of increasing political complexity as follows: 1. Acephalous segmentary clan and tribal formations; 2. ‘Secondary’ tribe and chiefdom; or 3. Nomadic empires and ‘quasi-imperial’ pastoral polities of smaller sizes (no more allowed to exist)". Of course the expansion of one prevent evolution of confronted society".

To follow the prospective or trends designed by the technological evolutions related to globalization like: "rooted in a triad of solid trends: miniaturization, decentralization and the “greening” of power generation. Combined effects of technological progress, growing environmental consciousness, the advent of a digital economy and the opening of markets to competition. Things directly concerning infrastructure investments.

A criterion for sustainability is about social paradigm itself related to scientific means. Good links between ecological sustainability and social one should pave the way for timing enough care of complexities and feedback more sustainable constructions. Like those not wasting natural resources stocks. Scientific means to succeed in maintaining themselves as artificial contradictions especially when previously involved in a system of oversizing hierarchy; but this can go on accumulating distortions and artificial complications. Theoretically, make things in a scientific way, can reduce inconsistency. Meanwhile scientists are no less than others, depending on artificial administrations of means; so too can engage in social manipulations; eventually poorly related to good social use and even against the wise sustainability of their discipline. Their individually and daily self-administrated practices depend on administrations filtering their good will."

Administration with a bureaucratic common sense that is also creating plenty of absurdities even when struggling for public funds savings. Because and after all, the modern world is not so bad, nor without virtues, and because artificial simplifications mimic natural complexity, it is easy to disqualify birds of ill omen, bad prophets, most paradigms reach points of no return (or poorly care humans' lifes) whatever the good intentions. Tell too simple lessons has the defect to propagate fallacy and emptiness. Useless shells, even when joined with sophisticated intellectual explanations and rituals of virtual games, do not help social structures and freely committed people to fill their social space with consistent activities.

Also " R. Singh has shown that under the rule of Comparative Causation Under Negligence, in an equilibrium, choice of less than the due care by both parties is not possible. In fact, in any equilibrium, neither of the parties can be negligent. It immediately follows from out results that multiple equilibria, if they exist, will involve at least the due care by both the parties. Therefore, the search for the existence of an equilibrium should focus on the cases which involve the due or more than the due care by both the parties"; Meaning by that good will is not enough nor a warrant that care will be relativelly enough.

Social Involvement

Any project is social, positivelly as expected or negativelly by adverse effects. And this will accelerate because close to the closures of transformed spaces. Perhaps the strongest promoters of those worst scenarii being those pretending to make good and distorting democratic analysis and appraisal. Social project (of infrastructure, of society and so on) can be examined at different levels of social concern, from macro to micro, making that way different registers or different sectors or multidisciplinarity of activities. In transformations according main equipments installed and / or by the involvement of people and communities. The most socially effective projects are not necessarilly those pretending to target the people, there efficiency may be related to the gain of some specific results if systems of measure are also well adapted. These last ones often pretend to promote social sustainability of 'positive economics with unprofitable reasons'. Plenty of complex misguidance can be given, including by the best intentioned people; because misunderstanding local maps of information, ignoring the complexity of uncertainty and hardly questionning their sweet convictions. Look at, for example, natural disasters attraction of enormous momentum compassion, huge waste and miserable kinds of tourism. Now, this does not disqualify hardwork, synthesis strongly made, goals design to provide with shape, frame and commitment to good work.

Also, there are patterns in social projects that may have to drive the flows of activities. Social project by Project's scope caring involvement or participation may have as "major steps: 1) Assignment of responsibility, 2) Technical process and project management planning, 3) Organize a project team, 4) Public / stakeholder involvement and development, 5) Public Involvement Plan, 6) Project scope development, 7) Project scope documentation, 8) Project scope approval and scope modification".

"Project Scoping foresee: 1) Teamwork: project scoping is a collaborative effort involving teamwork and consensus building among stakeholders concerning the nature of a project and what it is intended to accomplish, 2) Public and Stakeholder Involvement : It is the cornerstone of successful project scoping and design, 3) Informed Decision Making: it is required a level of scoping commensurate with proposed work, 4) Project data requirements depend on a projects’ problems and needs, complexity, significance of related issues, and the scope and scale of alternatives to be evaluated, 5) Establish Consensus: among stakeholders concerning the proper scope of a project. At least on the following 4 technical products of scoping: project objective(s), design criteria, feasible alternative(s), and project cost estimate, 6) Proper Documentation: Clear and concise documentation that reflects stewardship of public interest and trust, logical decision making, and good record keeping".

" Stakeholder management implies to: 1) Communicate and build relationships with and between relevant stakeholders, understanding their relative impact and importance, 2) Know that stakeholder groups change all the time, so keeping pace with the new ones, 3) Be able to bring key people and groups with you to retain critical mass support for the vision and to solve the problems. These skills apply especially to politicians and includes understanding how political motives drive people at different times and for different reasons".

Participating people (in inferior position: the beneficiated) are not the only concerned y involvement: ”Private capital and initiative can help accomplish operational efficiency and investment objectives if two stringent requirements are met:

  1. Projects must generate revenues that cover operating costs and debt-service payments, plus earn a competitive rate of return on equity, and
  2. Risks that are internal (for example, construction and operation) and external (for example, regulatory and foreign exchange) to a project must be identified and clearly allocated to the parties that are in the best position to mitigate them. With their own capital at risk, lenders and investors have strong financial incentives to ensure that a project is built on time and within budget, and is operationally efficient.

Involvement must seek, all the sort of learning benefits from the project and its issues:

  1. "Analysis, decision making, learning from mistakes, evaluation,
  2. Ensuring that decisions are taken in light of available facts and using relevant past experience. Being able to identify trends and make decisions with these,
  3. Analyzing data to determine appropriate evidence to support decisions,
  4. Encouraging informed risk taking, and not penalising failure where people are genuinely trying to do the right things,
  5. Sharing examples of where projects have not worked out, and learning the lessons,
  6. Coaching and mentoring to grow the overall skills of a community, rather than just those of yourself or your immediate team".

Social Projects about basic needs: Water and Sanitation. Electricity, Networks and Communication. For example in "Marketing of water the challenges are:

  1. Collection of user charges. Being the mechanism of collection a difficult one, particularly in the slums and poorer urban neighborhoods where the local mafias tend to get involved. This is where the community-based organization could play a major role,
  2. Proper legal framework: Legal mechanisms also pose a major hurdle in the management of water,
  3. Exploitation of groundwater: Many critics opine that groundwater will be depleted if private bodies handle this resource.

Social Projects by the place: "Urban Development can observe:

  1. Planning must consider relations and processes rather than objects and forms,
  2. Planning practice must stress the multiple meanings of space and time,
  3. Planning practice needs to represent places as multiple layers of relational assets and resources, which generate a distinctive power geometry of places,
  4. Planning practice should recognise how the relations within and between the layers of the power geometries of place are actively negotiated by the power of agency through communication and interpretation.

Public Economy Concern & Commons Green

Investment Decisions often care:

  1. Ranking [of course by side of clear simple projects a proper hierarchy makes simple the cutoff, meanwhile complexity should care an anlysis of modulii or cluster analysis for more blurred links within and links without],
  2. Limited budget [without missing the the consistent essential learning needs all costs properly included, something mostly missed in aid project that do not consider the importance of promotion and piles of social transgression naturally included in social project 'anyhow' indispensable],
  3. Accept/reject [consider that those processes are practically never as crude as labelled],
  4. Select from mutually exclusive alternatives.

Economic Investisment criteria used are often:

  1. NPV - Net present value,
  2. TLCC - Total life-cycle cost,
  3. LCOE - Levelized cost of energy,
  4. RR - Revenue requirements,
  5. IRR - Internal rate of return,
  6. MlRR - Modified internal rate of return,
  7. SPB - Simple payback period,
  8. DPB - Discounted payback period,
  9. B/C - Benefit-to-cost ratio,
  10. SIR - Savings-to-investment ratio".

The information revolution has an extraordinary potential that could make cognitive processes more flexible. But it is also inflating useless biased and inconsistent information (when the ability to manage it is not well diffused) and unnecessary bureaucratic writings. Even if the sense of un-necessariness is subjective and implies to care a lot about which formal or informal regulatory mechanisms are implied by assumptions. When the information revolution started, a huge reduction in paperwork was expected. This has not been the case. Plenty more explanations have created contradictory inflation. More real science did not smooth out nor prevented conflicts from rigid interpretations. So contrary to what expected, much more paperworks for bureaucracy and even worse not to make more easy practical scientific solutions. This huge increase in information may satisfy more easily one’s practical needs for information but it comes with adverse effects: it destabilizes thinkings, values, and paradigm as well as heuristic processes. The skills to find, mine, keep, discard, and select have not developed correlatively to the diffusion of technologies. This is especially due to the 'service' of good ideas of management on what to do, recommandations remaining vague, abstract and fluctuating; able to produce the worst even when pretended to be driven by goodwill. Lessons made, since dominant cultural environments, are not the most suitable to build a fair, productive social environment elsewhere.

Because there is a practical or pragmatical lacks of social and cultural respect. Hyperinflation of what is pretended to be ideas often ignores balance and contradictions when it is not also promoting intolerance between global and local systems. Macroscopic intermediate assessments have not considered the ability to manage social complexity at ground level, despite pretending to promote it. Ground-level democratic goals have often not been properly served by technological means. When technologies have been efficient in highly complex but rigidly incorporated technological programs. In advanced societies, profit goal is strong and homogeneous, enough to support pyramidal systems of relationships of owners and concentration of technological resources. These have drained simple coherence, for example, toward firms or business, as abstract entities, while many global decisions have wasted social resources. But they are failing to adapt to local appropriations of means or to make common sense of human proximity better at cheap and careful sustainable solutions in plenty of developing communities almost forced to emigrate by failed failed states helped since decades by self-called good management.

"Unambiguous dominance of options or projects is by no means impossible, and a limited range comparisons are more likely; still there is often lack of transitivity when start more than 3 alternatives and project are complex. Consequently, any project's evaluation based on a specific discount rate should include information on whether, and to what extent, the initial judgment is robust to changes in the discount rate. If unambiguous dominance holds, then for purposes of comparing projects, the discussion is ended. If there is dominance for a range of rates, then the discussion should center on whether the range includes all 'reasonable' rates."

"‘Marginal cost of public funds’ (MCPF) is a problematic term in the cost–benefit literature. There are 2 different traditions: the Harberger - Pigou – Browning – tradition in which the marginal cost of public funds is always larger than unity and the Dasgupta – Stiglitz – Atkinson – Stern –tradition in which it may be larger or lower than one. In the first tradition the marginal project is a lump sum transfer to a representative consumer financed by a distortionary tax. A marginal cost of public funds greater than unity then occurs because the dead–weight loss of taxation. In the second the marginal project is arbitrarily defined. The size of the marginal cost of public funds then depends on factors such as, e.g., whether the tax system is optimal or if non–optimal which the marginal source of financing is.

"The marginal cost of public funds is defined as the ratio between the shadow price of tax revenues and the population average of the social marginal utility of income. Under optimal taxes a positive net social benefit is a necessary and sufficient condition for a project that passes the cost–benefit test. Under non–optimal taxes this is not the case: If taxes are too low a positive net social benefit is a necessary but not sufficient condition and if taxes are too high a sufficient but not necessary condition for an accepted project".

Diagnostic questions for building community-based conservation and related to "project's area: 1) Is the exclusion (or the control of access of potential users) difficult in the project area?, 2) Do the users have institutions (rules in use) to deal with the subtractability problem in the project area?".

Sustainable Environmental Commons key questions are there: "1) Clear boundaries that define the resource to eliminate open-access conditions?. 2) Clear context-appropriate rules and the recognition that no one set of rules will be suitable for all areas?. 3) Collective-choice arrangements through which participants gain a stake in and participate in the creation of the rules and governance structures?. 4) Monitoring of resource use by appropriators to address issues of subtractability and status of resource?. 5) Graduated sanctions for appropriators who violate agreed-upon rules?. 6) Platforms for low-cost effective conflict-resolution mechanisms to address conflicts among appropriators or between users and officials?. 7) Political space for appropriators to devise their own institutions?

Questions related to institutional linkages: 1) Are there nested institutions to provide a hierarchy of governance structures?, 2) What horizontal linkages (across the same level of organization) and vertical linkages (across levels of organization) exist in the study area?, 3) Are there boundary organizations involved in the project that can play bridging roles across levels of organization?".

Questions related to strengthening community-based conservation: "1) Does the project allow for pluralism by recognizing a diversity of perspectives?. 2 ) Does the project foster the building of mutual trust among the parties?. 3) Does the project accommodate local, traditional, or indigenous knowledge?. 4) Does the project recognize a mix of methodological approaches and tools that allow for broad stakeholder participation and deliberation?. 5) Are there platforms for deliberation?. 6) Does the project use a diversity of modes of communication for deliberation?. 7) Does the project foster the development of different skills among stakeholders, particularly for those stakeholders who usually have been excluded or marginalized?. 8) Does the project undertake capacity building and development of skills for strengthening horizontal and vertical linkages?. 9) Does the project report back to the community and other parties on its findings?. 10) Has the project invested enough time and resources in capacity building, trust building, and mutual learning?".