International environmental regimes are the most sensible way to solve environmental problems. Neoliberal institutionalism is one of the Approaches to the construction of international environmental regimes, and in this way emphasizes the role of international institutions and cooperation between them in the construction of environmental regimes. Accordingly, the present article raises the following questions: What is the solution in this Approach for constructing environmental regimes? Does this Approach have the potential to build environmental regimes? And finally, what are the criticisms of it? According to the neoliberal Institutionalist Approach, the common good is the guiding principle of cooperation between international institutions, but in addition to the common good, this Approach must also consider other elements such as identity and power. Because in addition to the common good, common power and identity can also stimulate the cooperation of international institutions and the establishment of international environmental regimes.

Migration management refers to the planned Approaches to operationalizing the policy, legislative and administrative frameworks developed by the institutions in charge of migration. In our country, the issue of managing migration abroad is important for the outflow of human capital and scientific and economic capacities, and it is necessary to know how. Considering the effective role of institutions in managing migration abroad, the main purpose of this study is to identify the limitations of this field by relying on the neo-Institutionalist Approach and using thematic analysis to achieve the thematic network of emigration management challenges. The results of content analysis of interview data with 23 elites and experts in this field indicate that emigration management challenges are distributed at three institutional levels including mental constructs at the level of the masses and political elites, institutional environment and institutional arrangements. Mental is noticeable on other levels. Also, the thematic network resulting from the analysis of the content of the data indicates a kind of weakness, inefficiency, failure, inadequacy at the institutional level, and in other words, a kind of "delay" and "lag" in managing immigration, which requires serious entry into this field and discourse building. It requires emigration at all three levels.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evolution of Douglass Cecil North's research program. Our study indicates his plan has been directed by this question: What are the effective factors on the success or the failure of the economies and why the performances of economies are so different? Realizing the strong effect of institutions on economic performance, in 1970s North conducts several studies about institutions, economic growth and change. However, because of his reliance on the tool box of neoclassic economics, he could not explain the inefficiency of institutions which govern the economies worldwide. Therefore he abandons the idea of efficient institutions, substitutes the assumption of bounded rationality for instrumental rationality, follows the concept of path dependence, and presents a model to explain inefficient institutions and weak economic performance. In subsequent decades North tends in a gradual manner to cognitive science, goes beyond the assumption of bounded rationality, and instead of emphasizing on the computational aspect of cognition emphasizes on the connectionist aspect of cognition. North believes it is the ideologies of the individuals that, during years and in a cumulative way, determine the individual choice and the path of the evolution of economic systems. Therefore, without understanding the process of cognition, it is not possible to obtain a correct understanding of economic changes.

Education is a continually developing activity, it shapes the way an individual develops their attitudes, thoughts and behavior. Education is not just about being literate but it is an overall development of the person in every aspect of their lives. A society's educational system can be greatly linked to its culture as the culture that one is in have an affect on the type of curriculum the institutions will develop in order to cater to every individual of that particular culture. Education moulds and shapes a society and it is influenced by the culture of the particular country or society. The educational system acts as a point of reference for the society's needs and demands. The principles that dominate this article is culture and education are interrelated and interconnected. Every educational paradigm is influenced by the culture of the society in which it operates. This essay underlines the extensive connection between culture and education. As a result, the goal of this essay is to depict these features from a Philosophical-Psychological Approach.

The dominant narrative in economics, shaped by the "tragedy of the commons," prescribes state intervention or privatization as the only solutions to collective action problems. Elinor Ostrom’s work, documenting sustainable common-pool resource governance, poses a profound challenge to this orthodoxy. Yet, her theoretical legacy remains contested. This article moves beyond viewing Ostrom as an empirical anomaly within mainstream economics, offering instead a heterodox reconstruction of her work as a coherent pragmatist–Institutionalist synthesis. We argue that Ostrom’s method is grounded in Charles S. Peirce’s logic of abduction and fallibilism, while her normative commitments align with John Dewey’s experimental democracy and experiential learning. Situating her within the classical Institutionalist tradition (Veblen, Commons, Mitchell) and contrasting her Approach with the New Institutionalism (Williamson, North, Coase), we demonstrate that her analysis of polycentric governance represents a distinct paradigm. A comparative re-reading of her canonical case studies—Nepalese irrigation, Swiss forests, and Turkish fisheries—reveals how local knowledge, participatory rule-making, and iterative correction function as mechanisms for reducing transaction costs and building resilient institutions. The article concludes by outlining a robust policy and research agenda for climate, digital, and urban governance, arguing that a pragmatist–Institutionalist reading of Ostrom provides not merely a corrective, but a viable heterodox alternative to market- and state-centric models, one that prioritizes pluralism, adaptive efficiency, and democratic legitimacy.

Artifacts are ubiquitous and influential in our world, but their nature and existence are controversial. Several theories have been proposed to explain the ontology of artifacts. Drawing on Popper's theory of three worlds, this paper suggests a metaphysics for artifacts along the line of a critical rationalist (CR) Approach. This theory distinguishes between three realms of reality: the physical world (World 1), the mental world (World 2), and the world of objective knowledge (World 3). The paper argues that artifacts have different ontological components that correspond to these three realms, and that each component is real and causal. The paper shows how this perspective can account for the intentional and functional aspects of artifacts, as well as their dependence on plans that influence different realms of reality. The paper explains how this pluralistic ontology, compared to the rival theories, enables one to explain the relevant ontological problems of artifacts. The paper also explores how this proposal can lead to a research program encompassing a broader range of technologies, such as social artifacts. In sum, the paper suggests that Popper's three worlds theory provides a rich and comprehensive framework for understanding the metaphysics of artifacts.

in recent years, a new wave of emphasis has been emerged on the role of institutional factors in construction of social action in economics, political sciences, organizational sociology, and management. This institutional turn in policy-making and its reflections on planning emphasize that any planning effort is embedded in a unique institutional setting-which has evolved by a certain historical and geographical background-and this setting is making paving the way for new institutional context. Institutionalism is originally an economic Approach, which as an exogenous theory has found a prominent role in many fields such as management, political sciences, sociology, etc. Since 1990s, this Approach has been discussed in urban and regional planning under "institutional turn" rubric. Since then, this Approach has been one of the most discussed topics in urban and regional planning alongside planning theories based on participation (communicative planning theory, consensus-building theory in planning, participative planning theory, etc. ). In fact, two main topics of recent academic debate in planning can be distinguished: participation in planning, institutions in planning. The importance of institutionalism in planning comes from the fact that planning is itself an institution; an institution which needs to explore the contextual and institutional settings for identification of issues and problems and making a decision on how to solve/alleviate those problems and issues. Moreover, the implementation of planning prescriptions needs institutional (and organizational) mechanisms. Although institutionalism has been discussed in Political sciences, sociology and especially economics literature of Iran, analysis of planning articles in Iran academia shows that there has been little attention to this influential field of thought in urban and regional planning which has become one of the main topics of discussion in 21st century planning theory. So there is a gap in this sense that should be filled. Therefore, the present article is aimed to do so. Therefore, the present article starts by reviewing the literature, extracting ideas and thoughts of prominent urban and regional academics about the relation of institutionalism and planning by using descriptive analytical method, to introduce a comprehensive typology of ideas about this increasing relationship. The resulting typology, classifies the institutional Approach to planning in three categories: non-critical Institutionalist planners (institutions in planning), critical Institutionalist planners (institutional design/intervention) and transactional Institutionalist planners (transaction cost theory of planning). These three categories can be classified according to Institutionalist Approaches as follows (respectively): sociological institutionalism, historical institutionalism, rational-choice institutionalism. Finally, they can be categorized in pragmatist, post-positivist and positivist paradigms respectively. Each of these Institutionalist Approaches to planning encompass difference prescriptions in considering institutions in planning thought and action. This article is not aimed to judge which Approach is better or more useful. There is the belief that each of these Approaches can be useful in different circumstances. The judgment about usefulness of any of these three Approaches should be done based on the problems faces, resources in hand and above all, contextual and institutional characteristics of the place that planning intends to change.

The present study, based on an ethnological Approach in sociology, studies the mentalities of researchers in regards to the scientific community in Iran. The theoretical section of the paper presents the sociological views concerning social system and social action and Institutionalist and ethnological standpoints about the scientific communities. This study used a qualitative Approach through semi-structured interviews with 69 leading researchers, mainly in basic sciences, who had published large amounts of papers in refereed journals indexed in ISI. In the findings section of the paper, researchers’ mentalities are classified. These mentalities include categories of existence or notexistence of scientific communities in Iran, their characteristics and their definitions by researchers. In the concluding section, different viewpoints are compared with each other and the study results are reviewed against Merton’s ideas as a leading figure of Institutionalist theorist of sociology.