Introduction: Border Crossings: Local and Regional Economic Development on the US/Canadian Border
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Even in the absence of formal plans or political union, governance strategies that extend beyond individual communities and, in some cases, across are emerging in North America. Recognizing the significance of these multi-level governance strategies will be the cornerstone to understanding local economic development issues in the next decade (Clarke, this volume). This symposium is based on the premise that local economic development is increasingly a regional phenomena and that regional ties are just as likely to cross national as local borders. Here, the focus is on US/Canadian cross-border patterns and relationships although one paper extends this analysis to Europe. Susan Clarke highlights the importance of cross-border relationships, to local economic development in an age of fiber optic communication, mobile capital, and an increasingly internationalized market place. Thus, given that local economies are increasingly interconnected, to each other and to international systems and forces, that localities now interact with global actors directly, and that international agreements are designed to facilitate multi-nation regional economies, a broader investigation of impacts on local economies is necessary. While much academic attention has been focused on the regionalization effects of the European Union, far less focus has been placed on cross-border regionalism in North America. The four papers in this symposium are designed to rectify this lack of attention by addressing several specific questions: * To what extent do regional cross-border relations exist among localities in the US and Canada? * How do these relationships compare to those within the European Union? * Are there regional patterns in the use of local economic development policies? * Is there local economic development policy transmission across the US/Canadian border? * To what extent do cities in the same region cooperate in economic development? * Which borders are most important in the context of local economic development: regional, state/provincial, or national? * What types of trans-national cooperative efforts are taking place in local development or growth management? Susan Clarke's paper provides the theoretical framework for the discussion. Using the Cascadia region as her focus, she identifies five for the development of regional governance regimes. These conditions lead to the causal stories and policy paradigms, the common language and vision necessary to support enduring cross-border arrangements. In short, she argues that several conditions appear to be supporting the emergence of regional governance structures for transportation policy in Cascadia: workable ideas--problems that can be solved and feasible solutions; well-defined issues with divisible benefits; an existing bi-national policy community; issues salient to existing electoral agendas; and, institutional channels. This is a process still very much in progress. Clarke notes that the necessary conditions have led to conventions and discourse regarding transportation policy among localities in the region. But, a stable regional regime has not yet emerged. Clearly, the pieces of a cross-border transportation system linking Canadian and US cities are in place in Cascadia. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly describes what happens when Clarke's conditions for cross-border governance are not in place. He presents another argument for the importance of politically acceptable policies with divisible benefits and a policy community in the creation of cross-border links for local economic development. Using the case of the US/Canadian border at Detroit/Windsor, Brunet-Jailly finds that, although the history of cross-border local economic relations was built on functional interdependencies, current market competition among cities on both sides of the US/Canadian border has precluded the development of meaningful regional economic relationships. …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».