The Swiss reform of the allocation of tasks: The Conventions-programs as a new partnership model for vertical cooperation?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I examine how the reform of the allocation of tasks implemented in 2008 in Switzerland improves the relationships between the Confederation and the cantons (vertical cooperation). The aim of the reform was to revitalize federalism by clarifying the responsibilities of the Confederation and the cantons in the implementation of public policies: public tasks were divided between federal and cantonal levels. 7 tasks become exclusively federal and 11 are handled by cantons. However 21 tasks are carried out by both the Confederation and the cantons, creating a new model of partnership. Among these common tasks and for 3 other public programs, 18 are treated by public contracts concluded between the Confederation and each canton: the Conventions-Programs. These public law contracts, valid for periods of 4 years (2008-11, 2012-15 and 2016-19) seem to be used as a “blueprint” in the implementation of public policies. By including the participation of citizens, municipalities, private sector and associations, they create a new form of multi-governance. Even if this reform allows a better separation of competences and transparency in the implementation of public policies, there still are problems to be solved and roles to be clarified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it