Federalism and the Evolving Cross-Border Role of Provincial, State, and Municipal Governments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
THE EVOLUTION OF A MODERN BILATERAL RELATIONSHIPIn his introduction to first American Assembly volume dealing with Canada-US relations, John Sloan Dickey emphasized that book aims at a better understanding of relations in time, place, and human affairs that add up to phrase each of us uses with such unconscious ease: 'the United States and Canada,' or vice versa.' Nevertheless, coverage of bilateral relationship in this excellent volume is dominated by decisions made and actions taken by representatives of national governments in Ottawa and Washington, DC. The second volume, which appeared two decades later, does occasionally go beyond respective national beltways, with Gordon Robertsoris chapter discussing how Canadian federalism, especially unfolding events in Quebec, might eventually affect crossborder ties.2 Other chapters deal with influence of economy, culture, and environment on Canada-US relations.Thus, second volume puts somewhat less emphasis on importance of Ottawa-Washington relationship, and this is not too surprising, because between publication of first book in 1964 and second in 1985, Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Jr., and others had begun to write about complex interdependence and growing networks of international ties which go far beyond relations between national governments. Indeed, Keohane and Nye highlighted Canada-US relations in 1977, labelling these ties quintessential model of complex interdependence, defined by the absence of force, lack of hierarchy among issues, and presence of multiple channels of contact between societies.' For Keohane and Nye, three types of cross-border interactions are prominent in contemporary world of international relations. The first is interstate interactions, typified by official exchanges between representatives of national governments. The second is transnational interactions which involve at least one nonstate actor such as a corporation, a labour union, or a church organization. The third is transgovernmental interactions which include at least one governmental entity or representative not linked directly to leadership of a national government. In this chapter, we will focus primarily on this latter category which was largely ignored in first two American Assembly volumes and which merited only one sentence in Keohane and Nye's own study of Canada-US relationship.DOCUMENTING MULTIPLE CHANNELS OF INTERACTIONCanada and United States share a 4,ooo-mile border and another 1,500mile border separating Alaska from British Columbia and Yukon. The evolving cross-border relationship, which affects 32 million Canadians and 295 million Americans, is as complex and diverse as any in world, evincing many of features of globalization emphasized by Keohane in following statement: Interdependence refers to a state of world, whereas globalization describes a trend of increasing transnational flows and increasingly thick networks of interdependence.4 The overall complexity in bilateral relationship is illustrated in figure 1.In economic terms, United States and Canada maintain largest bilateral trading relationship in world, with two-way trade in goods and services in range of US$1.2 billion per day, up over 150 percent since 1988, year before Canada-US free trade agreement (FTA) went into effect. US foreign direct investment in Canada, a type of investment which provides Americans with control over management of companies operating in Canada, surpassed $192 billion in 2003, with US-owned companies accounting for over 10 percent of Canada's gross domestic product (GDP) and providing 1.16 million jobs for Canadian workers.5 Canadian foreign direct investment in United States stood at $105 billion at end of 2003, with more than 470,000 Americans working for Canadian majority-owned non-bank enterprises. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».