Is the semiosphere post-modernist?

This paper provides arguments for and against M.Lotman’s (2002) contention that Y.Lotman’s seminal concept of semiosphere is of post-modernist (post-structuralist; Posner 2011) orientation. A comparative reading of the definitional components of the semiosphere, their hierarchical relationship and their interactions is undertaken against the two principal axes of space and subjectivity in the light of Kantian transcendental idealism, as inaugural and authoritative figure of modernity, the Foucauldian discursive turn and the Deleuzian (post) radical empiricism (sic), as representative authors of the highly versatile post-modernvernacular. This comparative reading aims at highlighting not only similarities and differences between the Lotmanian conceptualization of the semiosphere and the concerned modernist and postmodernist authors, but the construct’s operational relevance in a post-metanarratives cultural predicament that has been coupled with the so-called spatial turn in cultural studies (Hess- Luttich 2012)

Understanding self-organization and formal institutions in peri-urban transformations:A case study from Beijing

This article explores the mechanisms of urban self-organization and the role of formal institutions in shaping peri-urban areas. A case study of Gaobeidian, a former rural village that is now part of Beijing, examines the mechanisms of change and the interdependent relations between institutions and bottom-up initiatives that drive peri-urban transformations. The paper presents two main contributions: (1) it identifies the differences between government-controlled planning, shared governance, self-governance and self-organization and how these intertwine in urban transformations; (2) it proposes three distinct roles played by institutions in relation to self-organization: triggering, constraining and enabling. The empirical study of this Chinese case will enrich the current debate on planning for self-organizing cities by revealing the impact of, and the various responses to, self-organization dynamics in a hierarchical institutional environment

The Cluster as Market Organization

The many competing schools of thought concerning themselves with industrial clusters have at least one thing in common: they all agree that clusters are real life phenomena characterized by the co-localization of separate economic entities, which are in some sense related, but not joined together by any common ownership or management. So hierarchies they are certainly not. Yet, it is usually taken for granted that clusters, almost regardless of how they are defined, all expatriate the 'swollen middle' of various hybrid 'forms of long-term contracting, reciprocal trading, regulation, franchising and the like' residing somewhere between hierarchies and markets. This fundamental (but usually implicit) assumption would, perhaps, be justified if markets could be reduced to events of exchange of property rights, between large numbers of price-taking anonymous buyers and sellers supplied with perfect information as they are commonly conceived in mainstream economics. One of the original attractions of Neoclassical price theory was precisely that it promised a way of analysing the economy in general and market exchange in particular independently of specific institutional settings. However, introducing transaction costs as more than fees paid to intermediaries leads inevitably to comparative institutional analysis and, not to be forgotten, to the perception of markets as institutions with specific characteristics of their own. Some sets of characteristics are so common that they represent a specific market organization or market form. The cluster is one such specific market organization that is structured along territorial lines because this enables the building of a set of institutions that are helpful in conducting certain kinds of economic activities. Supported by empirical illustrations the paper argues that clusters are markets where commodities, services and knowledge are traded in a notably efficient way among the insiders without restricting their abilities to build pipelines and to interact with suppliers and customers residing elsewhere. The institutions characterizing this market form help creating an environment among insiders that reduces the barriers to acquiring and utilising knowledge produced or used locally.Clusters, organisation, knowledge transfer, transaction costs