Pub Date : 2023-03-13DOI: 10.1177/14730952231163274
Stefano Moroni
One of the most influential theories of justice in planning theory and practice has been, without doubt, that of John Rawls. The very idea of the just city is indebted to Rawls’s view. However, the way in which Rawlsian theory of justice has been imported into planning often seems debatable. This article aims to discuss this aspect critically. The objective is not merely to discuss certain planning approaches inspired by Rawls; it is also to investigate, in more general terms, what meaning and role (any theory of) justice could and should have for planning and urban policies. In revisiting John Rawls’s view, the article is structured around two points: first, a critical discussion on how Rawls’s theory of justice has been generally applied to urban policies and planning; second, an exploration of an alternative way to interpret and apply certain Rawlsian insights (often undervalued) in this field. The article is not intended to defend and recommend Rawls’s normative theory as a whole (i.e. in its entirety), but to evidence certain Rawlsian contributions of a general nature that are particularly important. Nor is it the aim of this article to contribute directly to the development of a specific substantive idea of the just city; instead, it is to highlight fundamental methodological and analytical caveats that are crucial in this regard. Rather than a “theory of the just city”, this article develops a “meta-theory of the just city”: that is, an approach specifying precautions and conditions for any coherent and convincing just city theory.
{"title":"What can urban policies and planning really learn from John Rawls? A multi-strata view of institutional action and a canvas conception of the just city","authors":"Stefano Moroni","doi":"10.1177/14730952231163274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952231163274","url":null,"abstract":"One of the most influential theories of justice in planning theory and practice has been, without doubt, that of John Rawls. The very idea of the just city is indebted to Rawls’s view. However, the way in which Rawlsian theory of justice has been imported into planning often seems debatable. This article aims to discuss this aspect critically. The objective is not merely to discuss certain planning approaches inspired by Rawls; it is also to investigate, in more general terms, what meaning and role (any theory of) justice could and should have for planning and urban policies. In revisiting John Rawls’s view, the article is structured around two points: first, a critical discussion on how Rawls’s theory of justice has been generally applied to urban policies and planning; second, an exploration of an alternative way to interpret and apply certain Rawlsian insights (often undervalued) in this field. The article is not intended to defend and recommend Rawls’s normative theory as a whole (i.e. in its entirety), but to evidence certain Rawlsian contributions of a general nature that are particularly important. Nor is it the aim of this article to contribute directly to the development of a specific substantive idea of the just city; instead, it is to highlight fundamental methodological and analytical caveats that are crucial in this regard. Rather than a “theory of the just city”, this article develops a “meta-theory of the just city”: that is, an approach specifying precautions and conditions for any coherent and convincing just city theory.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45217252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-01DOI: 10.1177/14730952221107148
Janice Barry, Crystal Legacy
Participatory planning practice is changing in response to the rise of specially trained public participation practitioners who intersect with but are also distinct from planners. These practitioners are increasingly being professionalised through new standards of competence defined by their industry bodies. The implications of this are not well accounted for in empirical studies of participatory planning, nor in the theoretical literature that seeks to understand both the potential and problems of more deliberative approaches to urban decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the sociological literature on the professions and use it to critically interrogate an observed tension between the 'virtues' of public participation (justice, equity and democracy) and efforts to consolidate public participation practice into a distinct profession that interacts with but also sits outside of professional planning.
{"title":"Between virtue and profession: Theorising the rise of professionalised public participation practitioners.","authors":"Janice Barry, Crystal Legacy","doi":"10.1177/14730952221107148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221107148","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Participatory planning practice is changing in response to the rise of specially trained public participation practitioners who intersect with but are also distinct from planners. These practitioners are increasingly being professionalised through new standards of competence defined by their industry bodies. The implications of this are not well accounted for in empirical studies of participatory planning, nor in the theoretical literature that seeks to understand both the potential and problems of more deliberative approaches to urban decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the sociological literature on the professions and use it to critically interrogate an observed tension between the 'virtues' of public participation (justice, equity and democracy) and efforts to consolidate public participation practice into a distinct profession that interacts with but also sits outside of professional planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"85-105"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a1/4c/10.1177_14730952221107148.PMC9869749.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10624481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-03DOI: 10.1177/14730952221137636
Mona Fawaz
How does a profession that prides itself on standing for the common good and working through action –not mere analysis or gesturing- demonstrate its effectiveness in a city devastated by intractable political, economic, financial, health, and social crises? In this essay, I dive into the current context of planning in Beirut (Lebanon) where I have been deeply engaged for decades. Recognizing that planning is deeply embedded in the making of the ongoing overlapping crises in the country, I propose three pathways for thinking about a possible positive role for planning in these circumstances: (i) to (re)construct a source of legitimacy for planning by reconsidering who has custody over the planning process and how the legitimacy of planning is secured; (ii) to accept a “tactical” practice in which grand schemes are replaced with tentative, experimental, and incremental micro-interventions that may succeed or not in reaching an integrated vision and, (iii) to activate the performative dimension of planning, its ability to imagine shared spaces and allow for transgressing contemporary limited realities.
{"title":"Planning and Crisis, Planning in Crisis","authors":"Mona Fawaz","doi":"10.1177/14730952221137636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221137636","url":null,"abstract":"How does a profession that prides itself on standing for the common good and working through action –not mere analysis or gesturing- demonstrate its effectiveness in a city devastated by intractable political, economic, financial, health, and social crises? In this essay, I dive into the current context of planning in Beirut (Lebanon) where I have been deeply engaged for decades. Recognizing that planning is deeply embedded in the making of the ongoing overlapping crises in the country, I propose three pathways for thinking about a possible positive role for planning in these circumstances: (i) to (re)construct a source of legitimacy for planning by reconsidering who has custody over the planning process and how the legitimacy of planning is secured; (ii) to accept a “tactical” practice in which grand schemes are replaced with tentative, experimental, and incremental micro-interventions that may succeed or not in reaching an integrated vision and, (iii) to activate the performative dimension of planning, its ability to imagine shared spaces and allow for transgressing contemporary limited realities.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47030957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-03DOI: 10.1177/14730952221140116
B. Boonstra
{"title":"Book Review: McFarlane – Fragments of the City: Making and Remaking Urban Worlds","authors":"B. Boonstra","doi":"10.1177/14730952221140116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221140116","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"349 - 354"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43227602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1177/14730952221121072
L. Lai
This essay begins with a trialogue on the definitions of “common property” and introduces two “traditions” of interpreting property rights. The older, traced to Gordon (1954) and propagated by Cheung (1970), distinguishes common from communal property; the younger, to Ciriacy-Wantrup & Bishop (1975) and made popular by Ostrom (2000), calls “commons” (communal in the sense of the older tradition) “common property. With the help of three matrices, the essay summarises the two traditions and explains that property rights and access are two distinct dimensions, respectively de jure and de facto, of resource enjoyment.
{"title":"From fish to land grabbing - a note on the transition of the concept of “common property” in property rights research under two traditions","authors":"L. Lai","doi":"10.1177/14730952221121072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221121072","url":null,"abstract":"This essay begins with a trialogue on the definitions of “common property” and introduces two “traditions” of interpreting property rights. The older, traced to Gordon (1954) and propagated by Cheung (1970), distinguishes common from communal property; the younger, to Ciriacy-Wantrup & Bishop (1975) and made popular by Ostrom (2000), calls “commons” (communal in the sense of the older tradition) “common property. With the help of three matrices, the essay summarises the two traditions and explains that property rights and access are two distinct dimensions, respectively de jure and de facto, of resource enjoyment.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"338 - 348"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45516694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-14DOI: 10.1177/14730952221139587
Katrin Hofer, David Kaufmann
This paper systematises knowledge of public participation by bringing together existing concepts and theories from planning literature to conceptualise the 3A 3 -framework of participation. The framework presents participation as an emergent phenomenon, shaped by the dimensions: actors, arenas and aims. Each of these dimensions consists of three interacting elements. The framework highlights interdependencies between these elements and reflects them in the light of their embeddedness in planning processes and the wider social, cultural, political, spatial and temporal context. The framework can be used to gain a better understanding of what constitutes the phenomenon of participation. It enables the reflection of different forms of participation and contributes to more nuanced, and context-sensitive conceptions of and approaches to public participation in planning.
{"title":"Actors, arenas and aims:A conceptual framework for public participation","authors":"Katrin Hofer, David Kaufmann","doi":"10.1177/14730952221139587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221139587","url":null,"abstract":"This paper systematises knowledge of public participation by bringing together existing concepts and theories from planning literature to conceptualise the 3A 3 -framework of participation. The framework presents participation as an emergent phenomenon, shaped by the dimensions: actors, arenas and aims. Each of these dimensions consists of three interacting elements. The framework highlights interdependencies between these elements and reflects them in the light of their embeddedness in planning processes and the wider social, cultural, political, spatial and temporal context. The framework can be used to gain a better understanding of what constitutes the phenomenon of participation. It enables the reflection of different forms of participation and contributes to more nuanced, and context-sensitive conceptions of and approaches to public participation in planning.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44184086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-10DOI: 10.1177/14730952221137706
S. Schramm, Amiel Bize
Nairobi’s planning regime is characterized by two conditions of exception: on the one hand, exceptions from regulation, that is, planning offices granting exceptions from planning rules and, on the other hand, regulatory regimes that are enforced by low-level administrations outside the planning office but that significantly impact Nairobi’s urban space—we call this exceptional regulation. We argue that it is these two intertwined conditions of exception that make possible the building of shiny modern city as well as the provision of essential urban services. We examine the two conditions of “planning by exception” by analyzing a scrap heap that has endured in central Nairobi for over a decade, even as the neighborhood around it has radically changed. The position of the scrap heap makes the contradictions of this regime of planning particularly visible. On the one hand, the construction sites dotting these neighborhoods provide a wealth of scrap for dealers to gather—and dealers, in turn, provide an essential recovery service. On the other hand, in these increasingly exclusive spaces, businesses like scrap metal heaps are no longer welcome. Thus, the construction boom simultaneously grants scrap dealers opportunities for accumulation and makes the conditions of that accumulation highly uncertain. This scrap metal heap thus offers important insights into Nairobi's spatial regulation because it is both a leftover from the neighborhood’s earlier socio-spatial form and intricately entangled with the redevelopments currently reshaping the city. Our key contribution is that we can only understand urbanization of Nairobi—and other postcolonial cities—if we understand planning as simultaneously working through a regime that grants exceptions to formal planning and by employing exceptional regulation of marginalized spaces.
{"title":"Planning by Exception: The Regulation of Nairobi’s Margins","authors":"S. Schramm, Amiel Bize","doi":"10.1177/14730952221137706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221137706","url":null,"abstract":"Nairobi’s planning regime is characterized by two conditions of exception: on the one hand, exceptions from regulation, that is, planning offices granting exceptions from planning rules and, on the other hand, regulatory regimes that are enforced by low-level administrations outside the planning office but that significantly impact Nairobi’s urban space—we call this exceptional regulation. We argue that it is these two intertwined conditions of exception that make possible the building of shiny modern city as well as the provision of essential urban services. We examine the two conditions of “planning by exception” by analyzing a scrap heap that has endured in central Nairobi for over a decade, even as the neighborhood around it has radically changed. The position of the scrap heap makes the contradictions of this regime of planning particularly visible. On the one hand, the construction sites dotting these neighborhoods provide a wealth of scrap for dealers to gather—and dealers, in turn, provide an essential recovery service. On the other hand, in these increasingly exclusive spaces, businesses like scrap metal heaps are no longer welcome. Thus, the construction boom simultaneously grants scrap dealers opportunities for accumulation and makes the conditions of that accumulation highly uncertain. This scrap metal heap thus offers important insights into Nairobi's spatial regulation because it is both a leftover from the neighborhood’s earlier socio-spatial form and intricately entangled with the redevelopments currently reshaping the city. Our key contribution is that we can only understand urbanization of Nairobi—and other postcolonial cities—if we understand planning as simultaneously working through a regime that grants exceptions to formal planning and by employing exceptional regulation of marginalized spaces.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"316 - 337"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44316592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14730952221131872
Maciej J Nowak
The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the critical events of the current times. Numerous authors believe the pandemic seriously changes the discussion, including urban policy. However, as the months since the pandemic outbreak has passed, some doubts have been raised. Were the hopes expressed at the first stage of the pandemic even correct? And what, concretely, should the proposed changes look like in the different (so strongly differentiated) countries and cities? An excellent illustration of the original early hopes was Ihnji Jon’s essay published in 2020, "A manifesto for planning after the coronavirus: Towards planning of care." Among other things, the author attempted to define a new pandemic-determined approach to planning. She identified some directions. These include inclusive planning practising a ’veil of ignorance’, planning for care in humankind, extending care to other beings, and a call to rethink the relationship between nature and human intervention. I share the assessments, demands, and emotions expressed in the essay. I find them visionary and interestingly formulated. However, after reading the text 2 years after its publication, in a somewhat different reality, I begin to have two kinds of doubts. The first doubt is whether the pandemic has a significant impact (on a global scale) on the directions of urban policies and whether subsequent events have not complicated earlier diagnoses. The second doubt concerns how legitimate demands are transferred to concrete urban policies. Here, I am primarily puzzled by the context of legal solutions in urban planning. At the same time, already at this stage, it is worth signalling that the issues taken up by the author have found continuity in other publications. One can point to the detailed delineation of the planes of urban policy response to the pandemic (Sharifi and KhavarianGarmsir, 2020) and the emphasis on the role (and necessity) of linking urban policy to health policy (Frumkin, 2021). There have also been views about the inadequacy of the pandemic challenge of the ’friendly cities’ solutions practised so far (Moreno et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the concerns signalled above are also valid.
{"title":"Is the pandemic a hope for planning? Two doubts.","authors":"Maciej J Nowak","doi":"10.1177/14730952221131872","DOIUrl":"10.1177/14730952221131872","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the critical events of the current times. Numerous authors believe the pandemic seriously changes the discussion, including urban policy. However, as the months since the pandemic outbreak has passed, some doubts have been raised. Were the hopes expressed at the first stage of the pandemic even correct? And what, concretely, should the proposed changes look like in the different (so strongly differentiated) countries and cities? An excellent illustration of the original early hopes was Ihnji Jon’s essay published in 2020, \"A manifesto for planning after the coronavirus: Towards planning of care.\" Among other things, the author attempted to define a new pandemic-determined approach to planning. She identified some directions. These include inclusive planning practising a ’veil of ignorance’, planning for care in humankind, extending care to other beings, and a call to rethink the relationship between nature and human intervention. I share the assessments, demands, and emotions expressed in the essay. I find them visionary and interestingly formulated. However, after reading the text 2 years after its publication, in a somewhat different reality, I begin to have two kinds of doubts. The first doubt is whether the pandemic has a significant impact (on a global scale) on the directions of urban policies and whether subsequent events have not complicated earlier diagnoses. The second doubt concerns how legitimate demands are transferred to concrete urban policies. Here, I am primarily puzzled by the context of legal solutions in urban planning. At the same time, already at this stage, it is worth signalling that the issues taken up by the author have found continuity in other publications. One can point to the detailed delineation of the planes of urban policy response to the pandemic (Sharifi and KhavarianGarmsir, 2020) and the emphasis on the role (and necessity) of linking urban policy to health policy (Frumkin, 2021). There have also been views about the inadequacy of the pandemic challenge of the ’friendly cities’ solutions practised so far (Moreno et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the concerns signalled above are also valid.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"21 4","pages":"403-406"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9527119/pdf/10.1177_14730952221131872.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9900997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-19DOI: 10.1177/14730952221115872
Daphna Levine, Meirav Aharon-Gutman
Urban regeneration and its implications for issues such as housing, gentrification, and homeownership have been researched by numerous theorists, practitioners, and policy makers. However, this article challenges the perception that urban regeneration is primarily a policy driver that leads to the displacement of residents, and by proposing an investigation of how urban regeneration also constitutes an opportunity for homeowners to achieve ‘In-Place Social Mobility’ (IPSM) – that is, social mobility without leaving their homes and neighborhoods. At a time when the welfare and social service system is weakening, residential property values are increasing, and wages remain stagnant, individuals must turn their homes into investment assets in order to increase their social opportunities. Following the Planning Deal and the Regeneration Deal, the interpretative scheme of the ‘Social Deal’ incorporates two fields: the city as a growth machine, and the social mobility of the homeowners. Through the theoretical demonstration of the notion of IPSM through urban regeneration in Israel, we propose the Social Deal as a new way of understanding the rent gap discussion – i.e., not only as a result of the cultural preferences of consumers on the one hand, or of real estate developers and market supply on the other hand, but also as a means to the self-profit of the residents.
{"title":"The Social Deal: Urban regeneration as an opportunity for In-Place Social Mobility","authors":"Daphna Levine, Meirav Aharon-Gutman","doi":"10.1177/14730952221115872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221115872","url":null,"abstract":"Urban regeneration and its implications for issues such as housing, gentrification, and homeownership have been researched by numerous theorists, practitioners, and policy makers. However, this article challenges the perception that urban regeneration is primarily a policy driver that leads to the displacement of residents, and by proposing an investigation of how urban regeneration also constitutes an opportunity for homeowners to achieve ‘In-Place Social Mobility’ (IPSM) – that is, social mobility without leaving their homes and neighborhoods. At a time when the welfare and social service system is weakening, residential property values are increasing, and wages remain stagnant, individuals must turn their homes into investment assets in order to increase their social opportunities. Following the Planning Deal and the Regeneration Deal, the interpretative scheme of the ‘Social Deal’ incorporates two fields: the city as a growth machine, and the social mobility of the homeowners. Through the theoretical demonstration of the notion of IPSM through urban regeneration in Israel, we propose the Social Deal as a new way of understanding the rent gap discussion – i.e., not only as a result of the cultural preferences of consumers on the one hand, or of real estate developers and market supply on the other hand, but also as a means to the self-profit of the residents.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"154 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43217163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：