Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long and successful marriage between high capitalism and modern authoritarianism in the case of Singapore poses a legitimacy puzzle. While the authoritarian regime has enjoyed and continues to enjoy broad-based support, the depth of its legitimacy appears to be shallow. This puzzle is generally explained by the primacy of an exchange relation between the regime and the people where the regime provides security and prosperity in return for legitimacy. Although the regime and the people are bound by mutual interests, they do not share a common good. This article argues that institutionalization of market-based compensation for ministers and top civil servants in the case of Singapore entrenches instrumental rationality and elitism, which reinforces the exchange relation between the regime and the people. While the relationship is stable, it requires constant attention by the regime to the people's perceptions of being disadvantaged, which if left unaddressed could weaken the legitimacy of the regime. El largo y exitoso matrimonio entre el capitalismo avanzado y el autoritarismo moderno en Singapur plantea un rompecabezas de legitimidad. Mientras el régimen autoritario ha disfrutado y continúa disfrutando de amplio apoyo, la profundidad de su legitimidad parece superficial. Este rompecabezas es generalmente aclarado por la prevalencia de una relación de mutuo apoyo entre el régimen y la ciudadanía donde el primero provee seguridad y prosperidad a cambio de apoyo. No obstante, aunque el régimen y la ciudadanía están unidos por intereses mutuos, no comparten un bien común. La institucionalización de las compensaciones para ministros y funcionarios de alto nivel, semejante a los incentivos que tienen los agentes económicos en el mercado, afianzan la racionalidad instrumental y el elitismo, lo que a su vez refuerza la relación de reciprocidad entre el régimen y las personas. Aunque la relación es estable, requiere que el régimen esté atento a las percepciones de los ciudadanos en caso de que lleguen a sentir que el intercambio es desventajoso para ellos. Por otro lado, la indiferencia a tales percepciones podría debilitar la legitimidad del régimen.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".