MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2059221496 · doi:10.1177/002070200405900408

Canada and Development Cooperation

2004· article· en· W2059221496 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amitav Rath

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Policy and Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrincipal (computer security)Law and economicsGovernment (linguistics)Subject (documents)Political scienceAltruism (biology)WelfarePublic relationsSociologyLawComputer sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

THE TOPIC presents a major challenge; it is difficult to say something new and useful given the many reports on the subject and the excellent advice provided in two recent papers on directions for Canada.1 I have, therefore, attempted a slightly different approach, expanding on issues not often covered elsewhere, an effort in the spirit of John Holmes. I believe that the trends, constraints, and choices made as part of the larger themes have a more significant impact on the role in development cooperation than is normally acknowledged. An overly narrow frame does not allow for a full strategic overview of the most important issues and their interconnections. My article starts with the larger issues that provide the framework within which development cooperation policy must be developed and implemented. I argue first that development assistance and cooperation efforts are vital to self-interest and are not merely an expression of charity. I then touch on a few lessons from the past and some new emerging issues that will have to be considered in developing new policies and structures. Finally, I present a few directions for the future and some errors that should be avoided.CANADIAN INTERESTS AND DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION Development cooperation is generally viewed only through the lens of altruism; the picture is of Canada contributing to the welfare of other people, usually non-white and poor, the charitable orientation of the people translated on their behalf by the federal government. In this arrangement, CIDA has been the principal institutional mechanism through which over 80 percent of the money, goods, and services are transferred to the deserving poor. As ClDA describes it, development cooperation is a tangible measure and expression of Canadian values-humanitarianism, generosity, equality and social justice.2 I have no doubt that we all support the view that existing orders of inequality in the world are a disgrace and that contributions to reduce poverty, ill health, and other gross deprivations are a required expression of our ethical principles.But I also argue below that development cooperation serves important hard interests, including security, sovereignty, and prosperity. It is important to start with hard interests: the soft principles of altruism, good will, and charity of Canadians proved insufficient to prevent the decline of resources towards the less well-endowed during the decade of the 1990s. The decline followed the demise of the former Soviet Union in 1989, which marked the end of the Cold War and removed the perception of a hard interest in the form of a need to influence poor countries. Many commentators saw the end of the Cold War as providing a peace dividend. Both resources and attention would shift from defence to development. In Canada, the following decade saw the decline of all allocations to matters outside-defence, foreign affairs, and development cooperation.During the decade of the 1990s, while Canada's GDP grew from $570 billion in 1992s to $1200 billion in 2003,4 a growth of over 100 percent, the allocations for Canada's official development assistance (ODA) fell both as a ratio of ODA to GDP as well as in absolute amounts. This brought Canada down from the middle ranks of the 22 donor countries of the OECD to the bottom three or four in terms of the ratio of ODA to GDP. contributions plunged to 0.22 percent, very close to the US and far from our highest levels of almost 0.55 percent. It is far lower than our 35-year-old commitment to reach 0.7 percent. It is also far from the almost one percent provided by like-minded countries in northern Europe. If Canada had met its long-standing commitment by 2003, the resources currently available for ODA would have been $8.4 billion instead of around three billion.This reduction of resources happened in spite of the fact that 44 percent of Canadians believe that the country allocates inadequate resources to foreign aid and 57 percent of Canadians have said that they are in favour of an increased tax at the rate of one percent dedicated to international poverty removal programs. …

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,832
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,965

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0200,014
Communication savante0,0140,005
Science ouverte0,0020,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0270,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisMême sujetCanadian Policy and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207