THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PUBLIC POLICY AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE: A COMPARISON OF FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR REFORM IN CANADA AND FRANCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By constructing a theory of multi-level governance, the thesis advances a framework to study the internationalization of public policy and that of the international economy. The theory is used to analyse the autonomy of states and national governments in a globalizing environment. The thesis looks at the policy process in Canada and France in the financial services sector to determine the effects of multi-level governance on the way states take policy decisions. In Canada, the policy process for Bill C8, often incorrectly referred to as the merger legislation, was studied noting the changes that have occurred in the policymaking process since the last cycle of reform in the early 1990s. In France, the same type of analysis is provided for the newly adopted Financial Safety Bill, comparing the process for this legislation to that of the country's 1984 Bank Act. In both states, the discourse was adapted to include commitments and market opportunities provided through multi-level governance. The policy options studied took into account (though were not directed by) multi-level governance participation. The issue of competition was a dominant consideration in the policy process for both Canada and France. Lastly, the actors involved in the policy process have changed partly as a result of multi-level governance. Just as importantly, multi-level governance has strengthened the role of both public and non-governmental actors in policymaking. Contrary to those who see political globalization as restricting accessibility of policymaking processes, the strengthening of multi-level governance leads to greater openness of policy networks. Non-governmental actors, including private actors and consumer and civil society groups, are more prominent in these networks, but they do not exercise control, but rather engage further in broad-based policy consultation and negotiation. A striking feature of this thesis is the autonomy retained by states, even in Europe, in policymaking despite the internationalized nature of the fmance industry.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".