Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the experience of nine countries, this book has proposed several theories about various aspects of the third way. Among these theoretical propositions, the most important for the book's purpose is the possibility for conflicting ideologies to create incentives for making costly changes to institutions. This is the main focus of the book. As a general thesis potentially speaking to all patterns of institutional evolution, I used it to evaluate two well-known competing theories of welfare state changes: power resources and path dependency. The book's main task has been to demonstrate the possible circumstances under which ideological beliefs can create sufficient incentives for absorbing the cost of unmaking old rules and making new ones. On this basis, the book contributes to the welfare state literature, in outlining the possibilities for power resources to create path-breaking, rather than path-dependent, welfare reforms after the Golden Age. In the process of establishing this argument, I have also proposed several other related theories. These include a thesis on contemporary social democratic ideological transformation, a thesis on the way in which positive externalities that result from being organized can spill benefits over to unorganized outsiders, and a thesis about the components and structure of the third way as a policy paradigm. None of these theories is deterministic about the outcomes. They merely identify the often (though not always) necessary, rather than sufficient, conditions for these outcomes to eventuate. The book, for example, does not lend strong support to those who believe that ideology is more powerful than institutional legacy, or that social democracy will reduce the insider–outsider divide. But the book does make clear that, given the right conditions, it can happen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".