Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is divided in three sections. In the first section, I question the use of the statist redistributive paradigm in federalism. In the second section, I argue that efficiency is a moral principle and that it has a strong normative appeal, especially in contexts of diversity. I show that adopting efficiency as a guiding principle to think of the role of the state, especially in contexts of pluralism, as in MNF, allows us to consider the division of competences in a way that is yet unexplored in political philosophy. Furthermore, I argue that embracing efficiency allows us to avoid the moral problems that other moral approaches encounter, especially as I will defend a non-utilitarian conception of efficiency. That also allows me to show that if one opts for the view that pictures federalism as an efficiency maximizing enterprise, it does not lead to a libertarian conception of federalism. Finally, I try to briefly sketch a possible connection between the principle of efficiency and republican ideal of ‘non-domination’ (Pettit 2012). More specifically I suggest that the pursuit of ‘non-domination’ is totally compatible with the pursuit of efficiency in MNF. In other words, the federal government can interfere to resolve government failures at the sub-unit level, for instance externalities, without being or becoming a dominating agent. The ideal of non-domination supports the sort of strong government interventions defended by egalitarians without having to compromise on the autonomy of federated entities. The combination of efficiency and non-domination ends with a defense of asymmetrical federal arrangements, without sacrificing the equality that states ought to preserve.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".