Regional and Transnational Discourse: The Politics of Ideas and Economic Development in Cascadia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Two features distinguish local economic development initiatives in this new century: they are situated in the gap or disjuncture of economic power and political authority and they increasingly extend across scales. Gaps in the ability of national governments to control global and transnational economic processes (Pierson, 1996; Wallace, 1996)--stemming from the logic of new competition and production processes at a global scale as well as limited national sovereignty--direct the attention and activities of political and economic interests to subnational levels. In turn, conditions of interdependence, indivisibilities, and uncertainty lead to greater efforts to coordinate actors and to channel decisions at subnational levels (Storper, 1997). When these conditions and the consequent need for coordination spill over multiple scales, effective policy initiatives become contingent on establishing multi-level governance arrangements. Even in the absence of formal plans or political union, governance strategies that extend beyond individual communities and, in some cases, across borders are emerging in North America. Recognizing the significance of these multilevel governance strategies will be the cornerstone to understanding local economic development issues in the next decade. According to Storper (1997), this will entail analyzing both the conventions and relations constituting governance processes. From this perspective, the capacity for multi-level governance is a product both of the ideas that frame different ways of understanding development problems and solutions as well as of the networks and regimes mobilized through these new frames. Using this approach, this paper maps the conventions and relations supporting the notion of regional, multi-level governance arrangements as a solution to disjunctures in the region in the Pacific Northwest (1). Given the institutional disincentives for cooperation created by the constitutional and fiscal structures binding local governments in Canada and the United States, acceptance of the legitimacy of inter-jurisdictional, cross-border cooperation is a precondition for formation of trans-border and regional regimes. The analysis draws on archival research as well as interviews with local and state officials (1998-1999) and participants in new bi-national and regional institutions. It is based on interviews with local and state officials and participants in new organizations and institutional structures in Cascadia (2). Along with consideration of newspaper and archival materials (3), these interviews provide a micro-foundation for analysis of the motivations of participants in multi-level governance processes. This empirical strategy improves on inferring policy and institutional preferences from post hoc analysis of policy decisions (Pierson, 1996). Briefly, I find that building greater regional governance capacity for economic development in Cascadia is hampered by competing definitions of the problem solved by Cascadia. Nevertheless, there is some evidence of the emergence of regional governance capacity on transportation issues: there is a coherent, multi-state and bi-national policy community active on regional transportation issues and transportation initiatives are framed as regional solutions to environmental and economic competition concerns. I. INTRODUCTION Globalization trends have produced disjunctures, indeed, non-congruence, of scale between politics and economic activities. In particular, economic activities increasingly are conducted at transnational and global scales while political decision making authority remains situated in national and subnational settings. These scale incongruities produce familiar governance issues in North America and Europe and elicit similar responses: establishing regional and transnational decision making structures and civic organizations to deal with the structural tensions of relations between transnational, national, state, and local governments (4). …
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 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 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 ».