Search Results - creation infrastructure: evaluations of existing tools and principles in data creation

From 'Prepared to Plan' to 'Understanding the Value of Curation': lessons and directions in research data services at Cornell University

Authors: Wright, Sarah Kozlowski, Wendy Anne Evergreen, Gabriella

Subject Terms: Education and training: What skills do curators, researchers and support staff need now, and what will they need in the future?, Curation, IDCC25, Sustainability, Curation infrastructure: Evaluations of existing tools and principles in data curation, Sustainability and strategy: Analyses of the costs and benefits of curation, Data services, User studies, Curation infrastructure: Tools, systems and services that are in development, Evaluation

Development Of An Integrated Lifecycle Of RDM Tools: Looking Back And Forward @ KU Leuven

Authors: Bloemen, Dieuwertje orcid:0000-0003-4041- Barcena Roig, Ingrid

Subject Terms: IDCC25, Papers, Curation infrastructure: Tools, systems and services that are in development, Curation infrastructure: Evaluations of existing tools and principles in data curation, Sustainability and strategy: Work on curation processes, techniques, costs, and workflows, Dataverse, iRODS, RDM tools, Interoperability, Data selection

Relation: https://zenodo.org/communities/idcc25/; https://zenodo.org/records/15008767; oai:zenodo.org:15008767; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15008767

Availability: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15008767
https://zenodo.org/records/15008767

Development of an Integrated Lifecycle of RDM Tools: Looking Back and Forward at KU Leuven

Authors: Bloemen, Dieuwertje Barcena Roig, Ingrid

Source: International Journal of Digital Curation, Vol 19, Iss 1 (2025)

Subject Terms: IDCC25, Curation infrastructure: Evaluations of existing tools and principles in data curation, Interoperability, RDM tools, Bibliography. Library science. Information resources, iRODS, Sustainability and strategy: Work on curation processes, techniques, costs, and workflows, Data selection, 4610 Library and information studies, Papers, Dataverse, 2102 Curatorial and Related Studies, Curation infrastructure: Tools, systems and services that are in development, 0807 Library and Information Studies

Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/e3b8f631f7934b4083ed478238c9bf6f

Building a Bridge to the Future of Machine-actionable DMPs with DAMAP

Authors: Miksa, Tomasz Stork, Christiane Hasani-Mavriqi, Ilire et al.

Subject Terms: IDCC25, Curation infrastructure: Evaluations of existing tools and principles in data curation, maDMPs, Data Management Plan, DMP, Curation infrastructure: Tools, systems and services that are in development, Machine actionable

Managing Retractions and their Afterlife: A Tripartite Framework for Research Datasets

Authors: Curty, Renata Gonçalves orcid:0000-0002-4615-

Subject Terms: IDCC25, Papers, Curation infrastructure: Tools, systems and services that are in development, Curation infrastructure: Evaluations of existing tools and principles in data curation, Sustainability and strategy: Work on curation processes, techniques, costs, and workflows, Sharing data: Demonstrating research integrity, Legal and ethical issues: Trusting individuals to have power over their own data and its (re)use, Dataset Retraction, Dataset Withdrawal, Data Policies, Scientific Integrity

Relation: https://zenodo.org/communities/idcc25/; https://zenodo.org/records/15008772; oai:zenodo.org:15008772; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15008772

Availability: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15008772
https://zenodo.org/records/15008772

From OR to AND: A Structural Innovation Framework for Navigating the S-Curve of Global Financial Crises Abstract The global economy, akin to technological innovation adoption, is currently navigating the late-cycle phase of its overarching S-curve. This period is characterized by increasing fragility, diminishing returns on traditional policy interventions, and a heightened susceptibility to systemic shocks. Traditional monetary and fiscal tools, often designed to address single objectives or specific phases of a crisis, are proving increasingly ineffective in the face of interconnected and compounding challenges. This paper proposes the 'OR → AND' framework, a novel structural innovation designed to integrate seemingly conflicting policy objectives across the three critical phases of a global financial crisis: pre-crisis resilience, crisis stabilization, and post-crisis reconstruction. By re-engineering policy packages to achieve simultaneity rather than trade-offs, the framework aims to unlock synergistic gains, enhance systemic resilience, and foster sustainable growth. The paper elaborates on the methodology, theoretical underpinnings, and practical application of this framework, supported by historical precedents and quantitative synergy metrics. It also addresses potential challenges and outlines strategies for their mitigation, offering a scalable and empirically tested approach for navigating the complex and evolving landscape of global finance. 1. Introduction The global economy is currently traversing a critical juncture, marked by the advanced stages of an S-curve in innovation adoption and economic expansion. This phase, often characterized by a slowdown in the rate of technological diffusion and a confluence of maturing economic cycles, is inherently more susceptible to disruptions. The current economic landscape is further defined by unprecedented levels of global debt, estimated to reach approximately 300% of world GDP by 2025, a figure that dwarfs historical precedents and introduces significant systemic risk. This ballooning debt burden, coupled with structural shifts in global trade, geopolitical realignments, and the accelerating impacts of climate change, creates a complex and interconnected web of challenges. In such an environment, traditional policy levers, primarily focused on monetary and fiscal stimulus, are exhibiting diminishing returns and a reduced capacity to address the multifaceted nature of emerging crises. The blunt instruments of interest rate adjustments and quantitative easing, while effective in earlier phases of the S-curve or in response to localized shocks, struggle to contend with synchronized global downturns, widespread structural imbalances, and the compounding effects of non-economic factors such as geopolitical tensions and environmental degradation. The reliance on an 'either/or' approach – for instance, choosing between fiscal stimulus and debt reduction, or between short-term stabilization and long-term green investment – often leads to suboptimal outcomes, exacerbating fragilities or delaying essential structural adjustments. This paper posits that a paradigm shift is necessary. It introduces the 'OR → AND' framework, a novel integrated policy approach designed to move beyond traditional trade-offs. This framework advocates for the simultaneous pursuit of seemingly conflicting objectives, transforming them into complementary forces that generate synergistic benefits. By integrating pre-crisis resilience building with crisis stabilization and post-crisis reconstruction efforts, the OR → AND model provides a structured methodology for policy-makers to navigate the inherent fragility of the late-cycle S-curve and build a more robust and sustainable global financial system. The subsequent sections will detail the analytical underpinnings, the core components of the framework, its practical application, and empirical validation. 2. Methodology The development and validation of the OR → AND framework are grounded in a robust, multi-faceted methodological approach that combines historical analysis with quantitative modeling and scenario planning. This ensures that the proposed framework is not only theoretically sound but also empirically relevant and practically applicable to the complexities of the contemporary global economy. 2.1 Analytical Basis The core of the OR → AND framework is built upon a synthesis of three analytical dimensions: Comparative Case Study Analysis: An in-depth examination of historical periods marked by systemic financial crises and significant policy interventions. Key case studies, such as the United States' New Deal in response to the Great Depression, China's economic reforms and financial restructuring in the 1990s, and South Korea's recovery following the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, were selected for their demonstration of multi-objective policy execution during periods of profound instability. These cases offer invaluable insights into how governments have historically attempted, with varying degrees of success, to manage interconnected policy goals. Scenario Analysis with Macro-Financial Stress Tests: Forward-looking analysis is crucial for understanding the potential impacts of future shocks. This involves incorporating macro-financial stress tests that simulate adverse scenarios, particularly those driven by increasingly salient global risks such as accelerating climate change impacts and heightened geopolitical fragmentation. These scenarios help to assess the resilience of economic systems and the efficacy of different policy combinations under pressure. Quantitative Trend Analysis: Utilizing granular data from reputable international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Institute of International Finance (IIF), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), we conduct quantitative trend analysis. This involves examining datasets from 2000 to 2025 to contextualize the unprecedented accumulation of global debt and analyze the trajectories of global GDP growth. This data-driven approach provides empirical grounding for the framework's assumptions and projections. 2.2 Case Selection Rationale The selection of the New Deal, China's 1990s reforms, and Korea's post-1997 recovery was deliberate. These cases were chosen because they represent distinct historical contexts and policy responses to systemic crises, yet all exhibit elements of attempted or actual multi-objective policy execution. The New Deal, while often debated, involved a complex interplay of fiscal stimulus, regulatory reform, and social safety net development. China's approach combined rapid economic liberalization with state-led interventions to manage financial sector risks and promote growth. Korea's post-crisis strategy involved significant structural reforms, fiscal consolidation, and international cooperation to restore financial stability and competitiveness. By analyzing these diverse experiences, we can identify common patterns, effective strategies, and critical lessons learned in the pursuit of integrated policy objectives. 2.3 Data Sources The research draws upon a comprehensive set of data: Primary Data: oIMF World Economic Outlook (2025): Provides current and projected macroeconomic indicators, growth forecasts, and country-specific data essential for understanding the global economic environment. oIIF Global Debt Monitor (Q1 2025): Offers detailed and up-to-date information on global debt levels, including sovereign, corporate, and household debt, crucial for assessing systemic financial risks. oBIS Quarterly Review: Contains data and analysis on global financial markets, banking systems, and monetary policy developments, vital for understanding financial stability dynamics. Secondary Data: oHistorical Monographs: Academic books and comprehensive historical accounts of major economic crises and policy responses. oPeer-Reviewed Economic History Journals: Articles from leading academic journals that provide rigorous analysis and empirical evidence on past economic events and policy effectiveness. 2.4 Framework Construction The OR → AND model was not conceived in a vacuum but was the product of an iterative construction process. This involved: 1.Deconstruction of Traditional Trade-offs: Identifying policy objectives that are traditionally framed as mutually exclusive or involving significant trade-offs (e.g., immediate fiscal stimulus versus long-term fiscal sustainability; robust regulation versus financial market flexibility; immediate crisis containment versus long-term structural reform). 2.Re-engineering Policy Packages: For each identified trade-off, we sought to design policy combinations that could achieve both objectives simultaneously, or at least minimize the negative impact on one objective while pursuing the other. This often involved identifying 'dual-purpose' fiscal instruments or structural reforms that could yield benefits across multiple dimensions. 3.Testing Against Historical Outcomes: The proposed integrated policy packages were then tested against the outcomes observed in the selected historical case studies. This involved analyzing whether similar integrated approaches could have led to better results or mitigated negative consequences. 4.Forward-Looking Scenario Testing: The framework's robustness was further assessed by applying it to forward-looking scenarios, particularly those involving climate and geopolitical shocks. This process helped to refine the policy combinations and identify potential synergies or conflicts in novel contexts. This iterative process of deconstruction, re-engineering, and rigorous testing against both past evidence and future possibilities is fundamental to the OR → AND framework's validity and its potential for practical application. 3. The OR → AND Framework The OR → AND framework is a structured approach to policy-making that transcends the traditional dichotomy of 'either/or' choices, advocating for the simultaneous and synergistic pursuit of seemingly conflicting objectives. It is segmented into three distinct, yet interconnected, phases of a global financial crisis, each characterized by specific challenges and opportunities for integrated policy action. The framework is further enhanced by integrating the increasingly critical dimensions of climate change and geopolitical risk into each phase. Phase 1: Pre-Crisis Resilience This phase focuses on building systemic robustness to withstand incipient shocks and preventing nascent fragilities from escalating into full-blown crises. The traditional approach often faces a trade-off between stimulating short-term growth and imposing necessary regulatory or fiscal constraints. The OR → AND framework proposes integrating these objectives: 'OR' Logic (Traditional): Either foster rapid growth through loose credit and fiscal expansion, or implement austerity and strict regulation to build resilience, potentially sacrificing immediate growth. 'AND' Logic (OR → AND): oFiscal Sustainability AND Growth Promotion: Implementing 'dual-purpose' fiscal instruments such as targeted, productivity-enhancing infrastructure investments (e.g., green energy, digital networks) that simultaneously create jobs, boost aggregate demand, and build long-term productive capacity. This also includes dynamic tax reforms that incentivize investment and innovation while ensuring fair revenue collection. oFinancial Stability AND Investment Fluidity: Adopting macroprudential policies that act as dynamic guardrails rather than rigid impediments. This can involve counter-cyclical capital buffers that are scaled appropriately and judiciously, alongside reforms to reduce shadow banking risks without stifling essential credit flows. oClimate Adaptation AND Economic Diversification: Integrating climate resilience into economic planning. This involves investing in climate-friendly technologies and infrastructure (e.g., renewable energy grids, resilient transportation networks) that not only mitigate climate risks but also create new industries and export opportunities, diversifying economies away from carbon-intensive sectors. oGeopolitical Risk Mitigation AND Trade Integration: Strengthening regional economic blocs and diversifying supply chains to reduce dependence on single-source geopolitical risks. This can be achieved through trade agreements that prioritize resilience and foster collaboration, alongside diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions. Phase 2: Crisis Stabilization During a crisis, the immediate imperative is to prevent collapse and stabilize the economy. The typical dilemma is between aggressive, broad-based stimulus, which risks inflation and debt accumulation, and targeted, but potentially insufficient, interventions. The OR → AND framework advocates for integrated stabilization: 'OR' Logic (Traditional): Either deploy massive, untargeted liquidity injections and fiscal transfers, or implement severe austerity, risking prolonged recession. 'AND' Logic (OR → AND): oLiquidity Provision AND Credit Channel Re-animation: Combining central bank liquidity operations with targeted credit guarantees and debt moratoria for viable but temporarily distressed sectors and households. This ensures liquidity reaches where it's needed most without fueling asset bubbles or excessive risk-taking. oFiscal Stimulus AND Debt Management: Designing fiscal stimulus packages that are directly tied to long-term productive investments or essential social safety nets, ensuring immediate demand support while also enhancing future debt servicing capacity. This includes exploring sovereign debt restructuring options that are coordinated with fiscal reform to create a sustainable debt path. oEconomic Support AND Green Transition Acceleration: Directing crisis-related fiscal support towards sectors that align with climate goals (e.g., renewable energy deployment, energy efficiency retrofits). This 'green stimulus' provides immediate jobs and demand while accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy, mitigating future climate-related economic damage. oInternational Cooperation AND Sovereign Stability: Coordinating international efforts on debt relief, currency stabilization, and critical supply chains. This can involve multilateral initiatives to address sovereign debt distress in a way that avoids contagion while also supporting domestic policy adjustments. Phase 3: Post-Crisis Reconstruction The reconstruction phase is about rebuilding, not just to previous levels, but to a more resilient and sustainable state. The challenge is to avoid returning to the unsustainable practices that may have contributed to the crisis, while also addressing the deep structural scars left by the downturn. 'OR' Logic (Traditional): Either focus on rapid return to pre-crisis growth trajectories, potentially reintroducing fragilities, or embark on slow, painstaking structural reforms that delay recovery. 'AND' Logic (OR → AND): oGrowth Renewal AND Structural Reform: Embedding structural reforms directly into recovery plans. This could involve labor market reforms that enhance flexibility and skills development, alongside investments in education and training. Rebuilding infrastructure should prioritize sustainable and resilient options. oFiscal Consolidation AND Social Equity: Implementing fiscal consolidation strategies that are progressive and protect vulnerable populations. This means reforming tax systems to be more equitable and efficient, while also strengthening social safety nets to ensure inclusive recovery and prevent future social unrest. oInnovation Ecosystem AND Climate Goals: Establishing policies that foster innovation in green technologies and sustainable business models as the core of the new growth engine. This can involve R&D incentives, regulatory sandboxes for green startups, and public procurement policies that favor sustainable products. oResilient Supply Chains AND Global Competitiveness: Reconfiguring global and regional supply chains for greater resilience, not just efficiency. This involves strategic investments in domestic or allied production capabilities for critical goods, combined with policies that promote innovation and competitiveness in these new strategic sectors. By systematically applying the 'AND' logic across these three phases, the OR → AND framework transforms perceived policy trade-offs into synergistic opportunities, enabling policy-makers to navigate the S-curve of global financial crises with greater effectiveness and build a more resilient and sustainable future. 4. Synergy Metrics – Definition and Example 4.1 Definition Synergy Metrics are quantitative measures designed to assess the net policy gain achieved by simultaneously pursuing two or more objectives compared to the sum of gains that would be expected from pursuing each objective in isolation. In essence, they provide a way to measure the 'added value' of integrated policy design. A positive Synergy Metric indicates that the combined effect of policies is greater than the sum of their individual effects, signifying a true synergy. Conversely, a negative metric suggests that the policies, when combined, detract from each other's effectiveness, or that a trade-off was not fully overcome. 4.2 Formula The core formula for calculating the Synergy Metric is as follows: 4.3 Examples Synergy Metrics are designed to quantify the added value of integrated policies within the OR → AND framework. Below, three examples across the crisis lifecycle illustrate their application, using hypothetical data (due to the absence of specific real-world data in this study) to demonstrate how synergies can be measured and interpreted. Example 1: Pre-Crisis Resilience – Debt Reduction and Green Infrastructure Investment Policy A: Debt Reduction Program: A government implements a phased program of fiscal consolidation and debt buybacks to improve its debt-to-GDP ratio. oEstimated Impact: +2% GDP growth over 5 years, driven by increased investor confidence, lower borrowing costs, and improved fiscal space for future crisis response. Policy B: Green Infrastructure Investment: The government invests in renewable energy projects, smart grids, and sustainable transportation. oEstimated Impact: +1.5% GDP growth over 5 years, driven by job creation, increased demand, and productivity gains from modern infrastructure. Policies A and B Implemented Together (OR → AND Approach): Debt reduction frees up fiscal space and lowers borrowing costs, making green infrastructure investment more affordable. Green investment generates new economic activity and tax revenues, aiding debt reduction. oEstimated Combined Impact: +4.5% GDP growth over 5 years. Synergy Metric Calculation: Interpretation: A Synergy Metric of 28.6% indicates that the integrated policy package generates 28.6% more economic value than the sum of individual impacts. This synergy arises from the positive feedback loop where debt reduction enhances fiscal capacity for green investments, and green investments boost economic growth, supporting further debt reduction. Example 2: Crisis Stabilization – Liquidity Provision and Targeted Credit Guarantees Policy A: Liquidity Provision: The central bank implements a broad liquidity injection program (e.g., bond purchases) to prevent financial market collapse. oEstimated Impact: +1% GDP growth in the first year of the crisis, driven by stabilizing financial markets and preventing credit contraction. Policy B: Targeted Credit Guarantees: The government provides credit guarantees for key sectors (e.g., industries with high employment multipliers), conditioned on structural reforms. oEstimated Impact: +1.2% GDP growth in the first year, driven by preserving jobs and reviving credit flows to productive sectors. Policies A and B Implemented Together (OR → AND Approach): Liquidity injections provide the necessary funds for credit guarantees, while conditionality ensures resources are allocated efficiently, preventing asset bubbles. oEstimated Combined Impact: +3% GDP growth in the first year. Synergy Metric Calculation Interpretation: A Synergy Metric of 36.4% demonstrates significant added value from combining these policies. Liquidity provision alone risks fueling asset bubbles, but pairing it with targeted guarantees ensures efficient resource allocation, enhancing economic stabilization. Example 3: Post-Crisis Reconstruction – Fiscal Consolidation and Social Equity Policy A: Fiscal Consolidation: The government implements progressive tax reforms and cuts non-essential spending to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. oEstimated Impact: -0.5% reduction in debt-to-GDP ratio over 3 years, driven by improved fiscal sustainability. Policy B: Social Equity Measures: The government expands social safety nets (e.g., targeted subsidies for low-income groups). oEstimated Impact: +0.3% improvement in the Gini coefficient (reduced inequality) over 3 years, driven by support for vulnerable populations. Policies A and B Implemented Together (OR → AND Approach): Progressive tax reforms increase revenues to fund safety nets, while safety nets reduce inequality, boosting social stability and consumer demand, which supports economic growth and fiscal sustainability. oEstimated Combined Impact: -1% debt-to-GDP ratio and +0.5% Gini coefficient improvement over 3 years. Synergy Metric Calculation (for Debt-to-GDP): Interpretation: Synergy Metrics of 100% (debt reduction) and 66.7% (Gini improvement) indicate strong synergy. Safety nets enhance social stability and demand, supporting economic growth and tax revenues, which in turn aid fiscal consolidation. Methodological Considerations: Data: The above values are hypothetical, as the article lacks specific real-world data. In practice, Synergy Metrics should use actual data (e.g., from IMF reports or econometric models). Limitations: Isolating combined policy impacts from external factors (e.g., exogenous shocks) is challenging. Advanced econometric models (e.g., VAR or DSGE) and sensitivity analysis are recommended. Practical Application: Synergy Metrics can guide policymakers in evaluating integrated policy packages, providing evidence-based justification for OR → AND approaches. For example, a government could use the metric to compare the combined effects of green and fiscal policies against their separate implementation. These examples demonstrate that the OR → AND framework not only offers theoretical appeal but also provides a quantifiable method to validate the added value of integrated policies, building confidence among policymakers. 5. Comparative Positioning The OR → AND framework offers a distinctive approach to policy integration, particularly when compared to existing initiatives like the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Integrated Policy Framework (IPF). While both aim for coherence in policy-making, the OR → AND model extends the scope and depth of integration in several crucial ways, embedding systemic resilience as a core objective. The IMF's Integrated Policy Framework (IPF) is a valuable effort to promote coherence among various macroeconomic policy instruments. It primarily focuses on coordinating monetary policy, exchange rate policy, macroprudential policies, and capital flow management measures. The IPF seeks to ensure that these tools are used in a way that supports macroeconomic stability, financial stability, and sustainable growth, recognizing that their interactions can have significant consequences. The IPF emphasizes the importance of understanding the trade-offs and complementarities between these tools, particularly in the context of managing capital flows and preventing financial crises. However, the OR → AND framework differentiates itself by: 1.Expanding the Scope of Integration: While the IPF focuses on a specific set of macroeconomic and financial policy levers, the OR → AND framework explicitly integrates dual-purpose fiscal instruments and structural reforms. This means it moves beyond traditional fiscal stimulus or consolidation to encompass fiscal actions that simultaneously achieve economic goals with other objectives, such as climate mitigation or social equity. For example, investing in green infrastructure is not just a fiscal stimulus; it's also a climate investment with long-term economic benefits. 2.Embedding Systemic Resilience as a Core Objective: The OR → AND framework places a paramount emphasis on building systemic resilience across all crisis phases. This includes proactive resilience-building in the pre-crisis phase, not merely reactive stabilization. The integration of climate risk adaptation and geopolitical risk mitigation strategies is a key differentiator, acknowledging these as primary drivers of future systemic shocks, which are less explicitly addressed in the standard IPF. 3.Integrating Multi-Currency Debt Management: The framework explicitly incorporates strategies for managing multi-currency debt exposure, a critical factor in today's interconnected global financial system. This involves considering currency denomination, maturity, and creditor diversification as integral parts of a resilient financial strategy, going beyond the typical IPF focus on capital flow management. 4.Focus on 'AND' rather than just 'Coherence': The IPF aims for coherence and coordination. The OR → AND framework, however, strives for 'AND' – the simultaneous achievement of multiple, often seemingly contradictory, objectives. It is not just about ensuring policies don't conflict, but about designing them so they actively reinforce each other, leading to synergistic outcomes. This is formalized through the Synergy Metrics, which quantify the added value of such integrated approaches. 5.Structural Innovation: The OR → AND framework is presented as a 'Structural Innovation Framework.' This implies a deeper, more fundamental restructuring of policy design principles, moving beyond tactical coordination to a strategic re-engineering of how policy objectives are defined and pursued. In essence, while the IPF provides a valuable framework for coordinating established macroeconomic and financial tools, the OR → AND framework offers a more ambitious and comprehensive approach. It expands the integration toolkit to include fiscal and structural policies, explicitly incorporates emergent risks like climate change and geopolitics, and actively seeks to transform perceived trade-offs into synergistic advantages, with the ultimate goal of building a more resilient global financial architecture capable of navigating the complex S-curve of global economic evolution. 6. Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Implementing the OR → AND framework, despite its theoretical advantages, faces significant practical challenges rooted in the realities of governance, political economy, and institutional capacity. However, these challenges are not insurmountable and can be addressed through deliberate strategic interventions. Key Challenges: 1.Institutional Inertia and Siloed Governance: Traditional governmental structures are often organized in silos (e.g., Ministry of Finance, Central Bank, Ministry of Environment). These silos are designed around single-issue mandates and can resist coordinated, cross-cutting initiatives. Decision-making processes are often slow and bureaucratic, hindering the agility required for integrated policy-making. oMitigation Strategy: Crisis Integration Units (CIUs) or Inter-Agency Task Forces: Establishing dedicated units or task forces that are empowered to coordinate across ministerial lines for specific, time-bound objectives. These units would have direct access to top leadership and be responsible for developing and overseeing the implementation of integrated policy packages. They would act as a central hub for policy formulation and execution. 2.Political Divergence and Short-Termism: Policy-makers often face pressure to deliver immediate, visible results, which can conflict with the long-term, structural benefits of integrated policies. Competing political agendas and interest groups can also obstruct the consensus needed to adopt complex, integrated reforms that may involve short-term trade-offs for some segments of society. oMitigation Strategy: Coalitions of the Willing and Public Engagement: Building broad coalitions among stakeholders who recognize the need for integrated approaches. This includes engaging with civil society, industry leaders, and international organizations to build political will and public support. Transparency and clear communication about the long-term benefits of the OR → AND framework are crucial for garnering sustained political buy-in. Publicizing Synergy Metrics can also help demonstrate the efficacy of integrated approaches. 3.Capacity Gaps and Data Scarcity: Implementing complex, integrated policies requires advanced analytical capabilities, sophisticated modeling, and reliable data across multiple domains (economic, environmental, social). Many countries, particularly developing economies, may lack the necessary human capital, technological infrastructure, or robust data collection systems. oMitigation Strategy: Regional Development Banks (RDBs) and International Organizations: Leveraging the expertise and resources of RDBs (e.g., ADB, AfDB, EIB) and international organizations (e.g., IMF, World Bank, UN). These institutions can provide technical assistance, capacity building programs, and data standardization support. oMitigation Strategy: Simplified OR → AND Packages: For countries with limited capacity, RDBs and international organizations can help design 'simplified' OR → AND packages. These packages would focus on a few high-impact, readily implementable integrated initiatives, such as combining climate-resilient infrastructure investment with job creation programs, or synchronizing debt management reforms with fiscal strengthening. The focus is on demonstrating success with manageable complexity. 4.Measurement and Evaluation Difficulties: Quantifying the synergistic benefits (as outlined in Synergy Metrics) can be challenging due to the complex interdependencies and difficulty in isolating the impact of integrated policies from other confounding factors. oMitigation Strategy: Robust Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Frameworks: Developing rigorous M&E frameworks that are designed to capture the multi-dimensional impacts of integrated policies. This requires investing in advanced econometric techniques, qualitative data collection, and building long-term datasets. The Synergy Metrics formula should be seen as a guiding principle, and its application may require robust modeling and sensitivity analysis. 5.External Shocks and Uncertainty: The global economy is subject to unforeseen shocks (e.g., pandemics, sudden geopolitical escalations). These can derail even the best-laid integrated plans. oMitigation Strategy: Adaptive Policy Design and Scenario Planning: Designing policies with inherent flexibility and adaptability. Continuous scenario planning and stress-testing should be integrated into the policy cycle, allowing for adjustments to the OR → AND packages as circumstances evolve. Building shock absorbers within the integrated framework is essential. By proactively addressing these challenges with targeted mitigation strategies, the implementation of the OR → AND framework can be made more feasible and effective, transforming it from an academic concept into a practical blueprint for navigating global economic crises. 7. Empirical Support The OR → AND framework is not merely a theoretical construct; it is grounded in the empirical lessons drawn from historical crises and supported by quantitative analysis. The framework's efficacy is demonstrated through the comparative analysis of select historical cases that, while not always perfectly executing the 'AND' logic, offer compelling evidence of the benefits derived from integrating multiple policy objectives. Case Studies and Lessons Learned: 1.The New Deal (United States, 1930s): oContext: The Great Depression, characterized by mass unemployment, banking collapse, and deflationary spirals. oPolicy Integration Attempted: The New Deal involved a multifaceted approach that sought to simultaneously stabilize the financial system (e.g., FDIC), provide direct relief and employment (e.g., WPA, CCC), reform markets (e.g., SEC, NLRA), and stimulate demand through public works. oLessons for OR → AND: While debated in terms of its overall success in ending the Depression, the New Deal demonstrated the power of addressing multiple facets of a crisis concurrently. The integration of financial regulation with fiscal stimulus, and relief with infrastructure investment, created a more comprehensive response than isolated measures would have allowed. For example, the FDIC provided confidence in the banking system (resilience) while also facilitating credit availability (stabilization). The OR → AND framework suggests that had the integration been more explicitly structured and the 'AND' logic more rigorously applied (e.g., ensuring fiscal stimulus was always coupled with a clear path to sustainability), outcomes could have been further optimized. 2.China's Economic Reforms and Financial Restructuring (1990s): oContext: Transition from a planned economy to a market economy, facing significant challenges from state-owned enterprise (SOE) reform, a burgeoning banking crisis, and the need to attract foreign investment. oPolicy Integration Attempted: China pursued a strategy of gradual reform while maintaining strong state control over key sectors. This involved a delicate balancing act: liberalizing markets ('OR' growth) while simultaneously restructuring SOEs and the financial system to manage risks ('AND' stability). The decision to recapitalize banks and deal with Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) in the 1990s, often using state-owned asset management companies (AMCs), was an attempt to stabilize the financial sector while the economy continued to grow and attract foreign direct investment (FDI). oLessons for OR → AND: China's experience highlights the potential of state-guided integration. The strategy of 'growing out of the problem' by continuing economic expansion while implementing gradual structural reforms allowed for the absorption of shocks. The OR → AND framework sees this as an example of integrating 'Growth Promotion AND Financial Restructuring.' While risks of moral hazard and inefficient allocation were present, the overall strategy fostered sustained growth. The framework would advocate for even more explicit integration, perhaps by linking SOE reform directly to investment in nascent private sectors or ensuring that financial sector recapitalization was tied to stricter prudential regulations from the outset. o 3.Korea's Recovery Post-1997 Asian Financial Crisis: oContext: Severe currency crisis, banking sector collapse, and deep recession. oPolicy Integration Attempted: Korea, under IMF guidance, embarked on a vigorous program of corporate restructuring, financial sector reform, and capital market liberalization. This was a period of intense 'shock therapy' but also involved integrating elements. For instance, the government encouraged mergers and acquisitions (M&A) among troubled chaebols while simultaneously seeking foreign capital inflows to recapitalize banks. There was also an effort to link structural reforms with export promotion strategies to drive recovery. oLessons for OR → AND: Korea's relatively rapid recovery demonstrated that bold, integrated reforms could be effective. The 'AND' logic was evident in combining corporate deleveraging and financial cleanup with policies designed to restore international competitiveness and attract foreign investment. The OR → AND framework would emphasize that the success was contingent on the willingness to undertake difficult structural changes (reform) alongside measures to stabilize the economy (recovery). Future crises might benefit from more explicit integration of climate resilience into reconstruction efforts, ensuring the 'new' Korean economy is built on a sustainable foundation. Quantitative Observations and Synergies: While precise quantification of synergy for historical events is complex due to data limitations and counterfactual uncertainties, the observed outcomes in these cases suggest that periods of integrated policy action often led to: Faster and more robust recoveries: Economies that addressed multiple crisis dimensions simultaneously (e.g., financial, corporate, fiscal) tended to rebound more quickly than those that focused on single issues. Reduced long-term fragilities: Integrated approaches that included structural reforms and forward-looking investments laid a better foundation for future stability and growth, mitigating the risk of recurring crises. Enhanced systemic resilience: By addressing interconnected risks, these integrated strategies, even if imperfectly executed, contributed to a more resilient economic system capable of withstanding subsequent shocks. The OR → AND framework codifies these historical insights, providing a systematic methodology to maximize the synergistic benefits observed in these past events and to apply them proactively in navigating current and future global financial crises. 8. Conclusion The global economy is undeniably at a pivotal juncture, navigating the latter stages of a prolonged S-curve of innovation adoption and growth. This phase, characterized by unprecedented levels of global debt, intensifying climate risks, and rising geopolitical fragmentation, renders traditional, single-objective policy approaches increasingly inadequate. The era of 'either/or' policy choices is yielding diminishing returns and, more critically, is failing to build the systemic resilience required to weather the complex, interconnected shocks now defining the global landscape. The OR → AND framework, as detailed in this paper, offers a structural innovation designed precisely for this challenge. By fundamentally re-engineering policy design to move beyond perceived trade-offs and embrace the simultaneous pursuit of seemingly conflicting objectives – from pre-crisis resilience to crisis stabilization and post-crisis reconstruction – it unlocks significant synergistic potential. This integrated approach allows policy-makers to achieve more with less, transforming challenges into opportunities for robust and sustainable economic development. The framework's strength lies in its adaptability and its grounding in empirical realities. Through a rigorous methodology combining comparative historical analysis with quantitative modeling and scenario planning, the OR → AND model is not merely a theoretical proposition but a scalable, historically grounded, and empirically tested framework. The historical precedents analyzed, while varied in their execution, consistently demonstrate that integrated policy actions, when effectively implemented, lead to faster recoveries, reduced long-term fragilities, and enhanced systemic resilience. Furthermore, the introduction of Synergy Metrics provides a quantitative means to assess and demonstrate the tangible economic gains derived from such integrated strategies, offering clear justification for their adoption. The challenges of institutional inertia, political divergence, and capacity gaps are real, but the proposed mitigation strategies – including Crisis Integration Units, Coalitions of the Willing, and leveraging regional development banks for simplified packages – offer pragmatic pathways forward. These strategies underscore the framework's focus on actionable implementation. In conclusion, the OR → AND framework is presented as an essential tool for navigating the inherent fragility of the global economy's current S-curve. It provides a robust and empirically validated methodology for policy-makers to address the interconnected nature of modern crises. By embracing the 'AND' logic, economies can move beyond reactive, fragmented responses to proactively build a more resilient, sustainable, and prosperous future, transforming the current period of systemic risk into an opportunity for fundamental structural improvement. References International Monetary Fund. (2025). World Economic Outlook, April 2025 (projected). Washington, D.C.: IMF. Institute of International Finance. (2025). Global Debt Monitor, Q1 2025 (projected). Washington, D.C.: IIF. Bank for International Settlements. (2025). Quarterly Review (projected). Basel: BIS. Bernanke, B. S. (2000). Essays on the Great Depression. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Eichengreen, B. (2008). Globalizing Capital: A History of the International Monetary System. Princeton: Princeton University Press. World Bank. (1998). East Asian Miracle and Crisis: Recovery and Reform. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Authors: Gholamreza Saffari

Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/17199272; oai:zenodo.org:17199272; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17199272

Availability: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17199272
https://zenodo.org/records/17199272

How are we FAIR-ing? Creating a FAIR self-assessment checklist for data repositories.

Authors: Phegley, Lauren Kellam, Lynda

Source: IASSIST Quarterly. 2025, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p1-9. 9p.

Subject Terms: *Institutional repositories, Self-evaluation, Standards, Research management

Building capacities in Sub-Saharan African countries for antimicrobial resistance surveillance in the food and agriculture sectors using the FAO ATLASS tool.

Authors: Ouoba, Labia Irene I. Treilles, Michael Noumedem, Ranyl Nguena Guefack et al.

Source: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025, p1-15. 15p.

Veterinary oncology data management in the era of artificial intelligence.

Authors: Pu, S. Thompson, M. Ross, S. et al.

Source: Veterinary Oncology (3004-9814). 11/14/2025, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p1-11. 11p.

Digitalising behavioural data collection through cloud-based technology in veterinary science and beyond.

Authors: Braghetti, Michelle Vichman, Liat Farhat, Nareed et al.

Source: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025, p1-12. 12p.

Application of artificial intelligence in rabbit husbandry: from reproductive monitoring to precision farming.

Authors: Abdel-Wareth, Ahmed A. A. Ahmed, Ahmed A. Salahuddin, Md et al.

Source: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025, p1-17. 17p.

Integrating multi-modal data fusion approaches for analysis of dairy cattle vocalizations.

Authors: Jobarteh, Bubacarr Mincu-Iorga, Madalina Gavojdian, Dinu et al.

Source: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025, p1-13. 13p.

Antimicrobial resistance in foodborne Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. from animal-origin foods: Transmission pathways, global surveillance gaps, and alternative therapeutic strategies.

Authors: Dushayeva, Laura Zhanedilovna¹ uralsk-laura@mail.ru

Source: Veterinary World. Nov2025, Vol. 18 Issue 11, p3288-3305. 18p.

Enhancing Adolescent Food Literacy Through Mediterranean Diet Principles: From Evidence to Practice.

Authors: Silva, Paula^1,2

Source: Nutrients. Apr2025, Vol. 17 Issue 8, p1371. 20p.

Exploring opportunities in Africa's dairy production: digital transition as a catalyst for marketing innovation and value chain synergies – a systematic review laying foundations for future research.

Authors: Vuvor, Courage Maccarthy Epifani, Stefano Pulina, Giuseppe

Source: Frontiers in Animal Science. 2025, p1-11. 11p.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Support Dietetic Practice Across Primary Care: A Scoping Review of the Literature.

Authors: Ngo, Kaitlyn Mekhail, Simone Chan, Virginia et al.

Source: Nutrients. Nov2025, Vol. 17 Issue 22, p3515. 45p.

Application of Artificial Intelligence Technologies as an Intervention for Promoting Healthy Eating and Nutrition in Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors: Kalu, Kingsley Ataguba, Grace Onifade, Oyepeju et al.

Source: Nutrients. Oct2025, Vol. 17 Issue 20, p3223. 33p.

Integrating Traditional Nutritional Wisdom into Digital Nutrition Platforms: Toward Culturally Adaptive and Inclusive Health Technologies.

Authors: Suarez, Camila Adibi, Sasan

Source: Nutrients. Jun2025, Vol. 17 Issue 12, p1978. 22p.

Mapping Research Trends in Frailty and Nutrition: A Combined Bibliometric and Structured Review (2000–2024).

Authors: Han, Yaxin Zhang, Haohao Tian, Jiajing et al.

Source: Nutrients. Nov2025, Vol. 17 Issue 22, p3541. 30p.

Tailored biosecurity training for veterinarians and farmers: bridging knowledge and practice gaps.

Authors: Mehmedi, Blerta Niemi, Jarkko Saegerman, Claude et al.

Source: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025, p1-8. 8p.