Pension Reform and Financial Investment in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the meshing of pension politics and financial investment in Canada and the U.S. during the 1990s. Drawing on the institutionalist literature, the paper focuses on the relationship between ideas, finance and institutional legacies in the debate over the reform of earnings-related pension schemes (Canada/Quebec Pension Plan and Social Security). In Canada, the existence of a public investment board in the province of Quebec facilitated the advent of state financial investment as part of the 1998 reform of the Canada Pension Plan. In the U.S., policy learning -- the process by which experts and state officials evaluate the performance of previously enacted policies -- involved mainly a comparison between public and private pension benefits, as the growth of 401(k) and other savings schemes combined with exceptional stock- market performances stimulated financial optimism and legitimized what is commonly known as pension privatization (diverting contributions to individual savings accounts). As opposed to the situation prevailing in Canada, the idea of investing Social Security surpluses in equity faced overwhelming opposition in the U.S., despite the efforts of President Clinton to promote it, notably in his 1999 State of the Union address. Although pension privatization appeared as the most debated policy alternative in that country, the conjunction of divided government, the lack of trust between the President and the Republican majority in Congress, and the absence of short term "fiscal crisis, " prevented the enactment of such a reform.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".