Federalism without Federal Values? Austrian Citizens’ Attitudes towards Federalism and their Effects on Political Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 2004 paper “Austria a federation without federalism?” the Canadian researcher Jan Erk stated that “the Austrian federation seems to work more as a unitary system because all political issues are set in a pan-Austrian frame of reference. This is because the federation lacks territorially based societal heterogeneity to sustain a principled commitment to federalism. Societal homogeneity induces a centralist political outlook at all levels of government which undermines the notion of self-rule in constituent units essential for federalism. (…) [T]he empirical evidence strongly suggests that the Austrian federation's centralist disposition stems from its social structure, not its formal constitution.” (Erk 2004: 20) Jan Erk does not stand alone with this estimation; not even in Austria. In the context of the discussion about the reform of Austrian federalism, Ewald Wiederin, an Austrian scholar and expert on federalism, characterized Austrian citizens’ attitudes towards federalism as follows: “Föderalist ist man nicht in der Sache, sondern für das Gemüt.” (“One is not a federalist when it comes to factual issues but for the mind.”) (Wiederin 2004: 58). This statement implies that federalism is deeply rooted in Austrian citizens’ minds and that they value the existence of the nine Länder. Yet, they are not in favor of lively federalism which results in different laws and different standards throughout the country. According to Wiederin Austrians prefer a unitary federation without federal competition among the Länder. Finally, Peter Bußjäger remarks that Austrian federalism is a problem of mentality (Bußjäger 2002: 149). According to Bußjäger citizens approve of unitary living conditions in the whole country while at the same time being in support of the notion that important matters of legislation remain within the autonomous sphere of competencies of the Länder. Presently this paradox seems to shape Austrian federalism. But is it really true? Is there any empirical evidence that substantiates this thesis?
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".