To help users understand how the strategies are distinguished in the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential, codes have been appended to the strategy names on the index pages (and at the end of each profile). These codes correspond to the type sections into which the strategy profiles have been tentatively clustered in the Encyclopedia. They are designed to distinguish the more general and fundamental strategies from those which are more specific or detailed. More detailed comments on each type are given by following the hyperlinks:

• A: Abstract fundamental strategies: Originally used (1991 edition) for ubiquitous, fundamental, "abstract" strategies, which tend not to be considered sufficiently tangible to appear on the agendas of international organizations (e.g. apathy, corruption, greed, etc). Now primarily handled as negative human values.

• B: Basic universal strategies: Used for broad cross-category, world-wide strategies (or strategy complexes), which tend to be prominent on the agendas of international organizations (eg "trading commodities", "protecting the environment" etc), and to group many subsidiary strategies.

• C: Cross-sectoral strategies: Used for major cross-sectoral strategies of a specific nature.

• D: Detailed strategies: Used for detailed strategies.

• E: Emanations of other strategies (including combinations of other strategies): Used for emanations (combinations or specific expressions) of other strategies, often taking the form of sets of "daughter" strategies applied in the same detailed area, or series of a detailed strategy applied in different areas.

• F: Exceptional strategies (notably those of a transdisciplinary nature): Used for exceptional, "fuzzy", extraordinary or potential strategies.

• G: Very specific strategies: Used for very specific strategies on which it is not considered appropriate to provide extensive descriptions.

• J:  Unconfirmed strategies: On which information is being accumulated prior to allocation to another type: Used as part of the editorial research as a temporary section for new, unconfirmed or inadequately named strategies.

• K: Provisional strategies: Used for editorial purposes as a provisional section for uncross-referenced strategies which have been generated with computer assistance from problem and organization files and currently have only organization or problem cross-references.

• P: Strategy polarities: Used experimentally for strategy polarities.
• R: Strategy roles: Used experimentally for strategic roles
• S: Suspect strategies: Used for editorial purposes as a provisional reject section for "strategies" which are considered suspect in some way inappropriate for the database.
• T: Strategy types or complexes: Used experimentally for strategy types
• Z: Duplicate / Deleted strategies: Used for editorial purposes as a permanent reject section for "strategies" which are duplicates and have been merged into other profiles. (Excluded from on-line listings)

Attribution to a particular type is never considered definitive and is continually reviewed for the on-line version. It is a pragmatic convenience. Some strategies coded "F" could well have been coded otherwise. In a number of cases a strategy could have been allocated to another type. Inclusion of a strategy in a particular type, rather than in a preceding or following type, has been based on a number of factors. The position of the strategy in one or more hierarchies of cross-references may be a major factor in determining its allocation to a particular type.

---

Derivation of type attributions

The following overlapping guidelines were used in allocating the type code letter during the editorial process:

• General to specific: Strategies dealing with classes of phenomena, such as living species, are allocated "B" at the highest level (eg the living kingdom of animals) down to "G" for a specific species (eg blue whale), or a specific disease or commodity.
• Universality: For example, all classes ("B") of living beings through to particular classes or specific types ("E"), such as tropical islanders.
• Fundamental to dependent: For example, strategies satisfying basic human needs such as minimal food or shelter ("B") throughto important needs such as work or education ("C" or "D") to subsidiary needs such as entertainment ("E").
• Hierarchical level: Top of several hierarchies ("B") to a specific feature of a single hierarchy ("D", "E" or "G")
• Discipline specificity: Transcending any group of disciplines ("B"), through major conjunction of disciplines ("C") to single discipline ("D") and sub-discipline ("E").
• Geographical/cultural locus: From global ("B"), without any specified region or division, through intercontinental ("C"), such as developing, industrialized or socialist, to specific ("D"), such as mountain or tropical regions, through multiple qualifiers ("E") such as "training refugee or displaced women", to strategies of one single country which are of wider significance ("F" or "G"), such as apartheid.
• Set membership: Where the strategy name suggests the possibility that the strategy is a member of a set of similar strategies, they are coded "C" or lower. For example "preventing blindness in children" suggests "preventing blindness in the elderly".
• Fashionable strategies: Care has been taken not to give exaggerated prominence to highly-publicized specific strategies (eg "protesting food animal transportation" or "ethnic cleansing").
• Exceptions: The code "F" has been used for unusual strategies, those whose existence may readily be queried, dormant strategies, non-material, extra-physical strategies and various other subtle or intangible strategies.

Attribution to a particular type is not considered definitive. It is a pragmatic convenience. Some strategies coded "F" could well have been coded otherwise.

A: Abstract fundamental strategies

This type has been used to identify strategies which are not usually the direct focus of international action. The strategies here are characterized by their abstract or fundamental nature. For that reason, they are also especially characterized by terminological ambiguity. Despite their seemingly "fuzzy" nature, it is these strategies which are frequently cited in debates and lead to recognition of the less ambiguous strategies in subsequent sections.

Many of the strategies here are best considered as strategy complexes

in that no single term adequately captures the underlying concern. Therefore,

although each strategy has a single main title, it also has many secondary synonymous

titles. The situation is further complicated in that the words used in these

titles frequently have other meanings. This results in their also being used

to name other strategies in this section (whether as main or secondary titles).

The terminological complexity is partially clarified by indicating

cross-references from each strategy to related strategies in which the same words

are used with somewhat different significance. An effort has also been made

to show how many of these strategies may be clustered within broader strategies

at an even higher level of abstraction. At this level of abstraction no words

can be usefully used to name the strategy. Such strategies therefore have names

with "*complex" appended to them.

Although the information in this section is essentially "fuzzy",

it is considered of value to that extent that it endeavours to map out the range

of concerns which underlie those with which international bodies are normally

preoccupied. Because of its fuzziness, this section can only be considered as

experimental. It is an experiment in handling the levels of ambiguity which

bedevil communication concerning strategic issues.

In contrast to the other types, these strategies are based on

work done on human values, and especially on negative values. This work is described

in the section on Human Values.

Essentially it involved clustering negative value terms and determining ways

to clarify, or map, the basic ambiguity by which such information is characterized.

The intent was to "capture" the full spectrum of negative values because of

their intimate relationship to fundamental strategies.

B: Basic universal strategies

This type identifies the major multi-sectoral, world-wide strategies

which tend to be prominent on the agendas of the major international organizations

and in the media. Such strategies also tend to group, or focus, many of the more

specialized strategies which are described in subsequent sections. Indeed in many

debates discussion of the more specialized strategies may be subsumed under discussion

of these major strategies.

Note that further information relevant to an understanding

of the strategy may be present in other strategies cross-referenced in the entry

consulted.

Many of the strategies in this section are of such proportions

and complexity that no single organization or discipline can claim to encompass

any one of them in all its aspects. The scope and implications of such strategies

tends to be a matter of continuing debate. They are not sufficiently well-defined

to respond to well-defined solutions. The nature of an appropriate solution

to such strategies is also a matter of continuing debate.

C: Cross-sectoral strategies

This type identifies the major cross-sectoral, world-wide strategies

which tend to be prominent on the agendas of international organizations with

more specialized concerns, as well as in the media. Such strategies also tend

to group, or focus, many of the more specialized strategies which are described

in subsequent sections. Indeed in many debates discussion of the more specialized

strategies may be subsumed under discussion of these strategies.

Note that further information relevant to an understanding

of the strategy may be present in other strategies cross-referenced in the entry

consulted.

The strategies of this type are often sectoral variants on the

broader or more basic strategies described in Type B. Many of the strategies of

this type are of such proportions and complexity that no single organization

or discipline can claim to encompass any one of them in all its aspects. The

scope and implications of such strategies tends to be a matter of continuing debate.

They are not sufficiently well-defined to respond to well-defined solutions.

The nature of an appropriate solution to such strategies is also a matter of continuing

debate.

Inclusion of such strategies calls for no comment because of

their widely recognized importance. Where they are cross-sectoral variants of

those in the previous section, their inclusion here prevents neglect of the

sectoral specificity, as tends to be the case when such strategies are subsumed

under those of the broader strategies in Type B.

D: Detailed strategies

This type identifies the detailed and sectorally-specialized

strategies which tend to be prominent on the agendas of international organizations

with specialized concerns, as well as in the media. Such strategies also tend

to group, or focus, many of the even more specialized strategies which are described

in subsequent types. Indeed in many debates discussion of those more specialized

strategies may be subsumed under discussion of these strategies.

Note that further information relevant to an understanding

of the strategy may be present in other strategies cross-referenced in the entry

consulted.

The strategies of this type are often sectoral variants on the

broader or more basic strategies described in the previous types (Types B or C).

Inclusion of such strategies calls for no comment because of their widely recognized

importance. Where they are cross-sectoral variants of those in the previous

type, their inclusion here prevents neglect of the sectoral specificity, as

tends to be the case when such strategies are subsumed under those of the broader

strategies in Type B.

E: Emanations of other strategies

This type identifies detailed and sectorally-specialized strategies.

The strategies in this section tend to be permutations and combinations of the

broader strategies identified by the previous sections (Type B, C or D). Many

of the strategies of this type are parts of sets or series resulting from such

combinations. Whereas the earlier types aim to be comprehensive in coverage,

this type does not necessarily include all potential strategies forming part of

such series.

Note that further information relevant to an understanding

of the strategy may be present in other strategies cross-referenced in the entry

consulted, especially any broader strategies.

Whereas the strategies allocated to earlier types tend to be

the subject of distinct studies, conventions or organizational programmes, those

of this type tend to emerge from the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of documents

which may only incidentally be strategy-focused. strategies at this level of detail

frequently escape information collection procedures and are easily ignored as

side effects of broader strategies. It is also the case that these strategies may

be more readily detected in practical situations.

F: Fuzzy exceptional strategies

This type identifies "unusual" strategies. These may include:

• potential strategies;
• strategies based on "superstition";
• strategies based on unsubstantiated beliefs (such as UFOs)
• dormant strategies and strategies of the past;
• essentially ambiguous, intangible or "fuzzy" strategies;
• strategies in the organized response to other strategies;
• low probability strategies (such as geomagnetic reversal).

Strategies are also allocated to this type when it is difficult to justify their allocation to any other type. A significant number of the strategies cannot be readily grouped into hierarchies using the "broader" relationship. They then tend to be characterized by the looser "related" link or by functional links to other strategies.

Note that further information relevant to an understanding

of the strategy may be present in other strategies cross-referenced in the entry

consulted.

The strategies in this type tend not to be a preoccupation of

the programmes of international organizations. But they may emerge in reports

on the failures of those programmes.

The strategies allocated to this type tend to emerge from unusual

studies that do not fall within any of the conventional disciplines and thus

seldom figure in any reviews of the crises of the times. Some derive from the

paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of documents of programmes in response to the

more conventional described in earlier types. strategies of this kind frequently

escape information collection procedures and are easily ignored as being unworthy

of serious attention. The importance of some of these strategies become more readily

apparent in practical situations.

G: Very specific strategies

This type identifies very specific strategies. They themselves

tend to be grouped under broader strategies identified by earlier types. A strategy

is included here when it is considered too specific to merit inclusion in any

of the previous types, especially if it constitutes one of a number of sub-elements

of specific strategies described there.

Descriptions are often not given any priority. The strategies

may only appear as cross-references of entries under earlier types.

In the process of collecting information for description under

previous types, the names of many interesting candidates for inclusion emerge.

The many strategies in this type constitute the detail of reference books on diseases,

endangered species, strategies of particular commodities or economic sectors,

and the like. As such they are easily ignored in attempts to respond to the

classes of strategies to which they belong.

It is by specific strategies that people and groups are touched.

The challenge is to explore methods of providing pointers to the maximum number

of such strategies. Keyword indexes and hierarchies of cross-references are used,

thus ensuring a trace on them, whether or not it is possible or appropriate

to provide a succinct description of them at this stage. The difficulty is to

establish useful cut-off points to avoid overwhelming the process with strategies

at an excessive level of detail.

Registering a strategy under this type ensures that borderline

cases can be noted, indexed and included in hierarchies and networks of cross-references

in anticipation of the opportunity for future research and editorial work on

them. This type therefore provides a possibility for initiating the process

of setting such strategies in context.

J: Strategies under consideration

This type identifies strategies which are under consideration

for inclusion in the preceding types. As such they may overlap strategies already

appearing there or may be rejected for a variety of other reasons. strategies

are included in this type:

• whenever documents have been located implying that an entry could possibly

  be elaborated for any of the previous types, if resources permitted; or

• where there was doubt that the strategy named could be appropriately distinguished,

  at this stage, from other strategies with similar names.

Note that further information relevant to an understanding

of the strategy may be present in other strategies to which the index cross-reference

refers, especially any broader strategies.

In the process of collecting information for description in the previous types, the names of many interesting candidates for inclusion emerge. Since the strategy collection process is an ongoing one, this type provides a valuable means of reflecting the kinds of strategy on which further information is being sought. Registering a strategy in this type ensures that borderline or questionable cases can be noted at an early stage. They are immediately indexed and included in hierarchies and networks of cross-references in anticipation of the opportunity for future research and editorial work on them. This type therefore provides a possibility for initiating the process of setting such strategies in context.

P: Strategy polarities

As an experiment in data presentation in order to obtain a better overview of major strategies, and especially to highlight the strategic dimension, it was decided to group the entries in Types B, C and F using categories corresponding to those developed for the 225 value polarities of the Human Values Project. This was suggested, and rendered possible, by the striking parallelism between the value words of Type C (Constructive values) and the operative gerunds used for strategy names to provide the action-oriented emphasis to the strategies they identified. The result of this regrouping forms the 239 entries of Type P.

Strategy types and complexes

Pursuing the relationship to the Human Values Project, it was also decided to group the strategic polarities of Type P (Value polarities) within 45 strategy types (as had been done for the values). The result of this regrouping forms a classified index to Type P.

Strategic roles

(Printed in the second edition (1986) of the Encyclopedia only). For the 1986 edition, it was decided to explore the possibility of defining "personal strategies" (to complement the primary emphasis on collective strategies, primarily open to groups, communities and organizations). Personal strategies were defined as "non-economic occupations" or "roles" through which individuals could achieve many of their psycho-social needs. Some of the strategies-cum-roles it proved interesting to include in this experimental section were, for example, managerial team roles/styles (R. Meredith Belbin, Management Teams, London, Heinemann, 1981) and roles/strategies from selected interpersonal games identified by the techniques of transaction analysis (Eric Berne, Games People Play: the psychology of human relationships, London, André Deutsch, 1966). These suggest the possibility of interrelating complementary personal strategies. By including a handful of basic economic roles (employee, entrepreneur, etc), this series could then be conceived as "strategic roles". The editorial work on this type was subcontracted to the Institute of Cultural Affairs (Brussels) in order to benefit from its experience in community development. This type has not been further developed and is not made accessible.