Public Goods and Good Jobs: The Byrne Report and the Labour Question in New Brunswick, 1963–1968
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
WHEN PROFESSOR MURRAY YOUNG was teaching his pioneering courses on New Brunswick history up to what was then the recent past of the 1960s, colleagues would ask him what text he was using for the contemporary period.His answer was the Byrne Report.Students in that class learned how to read tables of data and lists of recommendations, and they came to appreciate the Report of the Royal Commission on Finance and Municipal Taxation as one of the most significant documents in the historical evolution of the province.From an historical perspective, more than 50 years since the completion of the Byrne Report, we are still considering its impact.Numerous scholars have studied the sweeping changes in provincial administration and public finance that were proposed as well as the consequential reforms that came to be described as the Programme of Equal Opportunity.In the hands of Edward G. Byrne and Louis Joseph Robichaud, these initiatives involved, as political scientist Robert Young has pointed out, both the promotion of greater efficiency in provincial administration and also a larger measure of redistributive social justice within the province.Proceeding from the assumption that government is not a necessary evil but a positive force for the delivery of public goods in society, the report concluded that a modernized provincial state was the best agent of reform. 1 The present exploration focuses on one particular theme in the reception of the Byrne Report.There is at least one historic silence in the pages of the report; and, in the story of Equal Opportunity, there is at least one outcome that was not anticipated at the start.As scholars have pointed out, the politics of New Brunswick in the 1960s involved tensions between technocratic and democratic priorities -a dilemma that 1 Robert A. Young, "The Programme of Equal Opportunity: An Overview," in The Robichaud Era, 1960-70 -Colloquium Proceedings (Moncton: The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, 2001), 23-35 and other chapters in this volume.See also Young, "Remembering Equal Opportunity: Clearing the Undergrowth in New Brunswick," Canadian Public Administration 30, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 88-102.Note also the discussion of the mixed support for Robichaud's reforms in Joël Belliveau, "Acadian New Brunswick's Ambivalent Leap into the Canadian Liberal Order," in Creating Postwar Canada: Community, Diversity, and Dissent, 1945-75, ed.Magda Fahrni and Robert Rutherdale (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008), 61-88.For a case study in the paradoxes of populism in the 1960s, see James Kenny, "A New Dependency: State, Local Capital, and the Development of New Brunswick's Base Metal Industry, 1960-70," Canadian Historical Review 78, no. 1 (March 1997): 1-39.The original version of the present study was presented at the Byrne @ 50 Symposium sponsored by the Urban and Community Studies Institute, University of New Brunswick, November 2013.The context was established in an evocative keynote address by Jim O'Sullivan; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLfIIYi7Lcc.David Frank, "Public Goods and Good Jobs: The Byrne Report and the Labour Question in
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 | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 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 ».