The New Community: Liberal Intergovernmentalism and East African Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mwita Chacha Department of International Affairs The University of Georgia Athens Georgia 30602 mcchacha@uga.edu 28 August 2009 Abstract: Regional integration in sub-Saharan Africa is as old as the post-colonial African political system. Theoretically accounting for the developments and dynamics of regionalism in Africa, however, has been limited. While much has been written about the effects of regional integration schemes on trade and economic development, a theoretical framework accounting for the evolution of these regional blocs is lacking. This paper proposes to apply Liberal Intergovernmentalism, a theoretical model used mainly to explain the European Union, in the case of the East African Community (EAC). The paper seeks to demonstrate that preferences of prominent business groups in the three member-states, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, influenced the governments’ policy positions regarding regional integration during the negotiations for a customs union. These groups, through lobbying and seeking an audience with their respective governments, were able to have their policy preferences reflected in final state policy on integration. Furthermore, the outcomes of interstate bargaining and the institutional choice reflected the wishes of the three member-states of ensuring that integration would maximize their welfare. Liberal Intergovernmentalism offers a more plausible explanation of East African integration by focusing on influences of policy and bargaining outcomes, unlike other explanations such as Pan-Africanism, which as a constructivist/ideational argument, circumvents the power of the state. Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada 3—6 September 2009.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".