Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper the impact of budget size on a government's choice to centralize or decentralize the budgetary process is investigated using asymmetric information, differing preferences, and endogenous budgetary arrangements. The central government chooses between a budgetary process that excludes the regional board (centralization) and one that includes the board (decentralization) in the determination of program budget levels. It is predicted that the central government will decentralize the budgetary process at low and centralize at high overall budget levels. Switching from decentralization to centralization is predicted to result in a reduction in the budget allocated to the regional board. JEL Classification: H3, C7 Processus budgétaire endogène dans le secteur public: faut‐il centraliser ou non? Ce mémoire analyse l'impact de la taille du budget sur le choix par un gouvernement de centraliser ou non son processus budgétaire. On met en évidence l'information asymétrique, les préférences différentes, et les arrangements budgétaires endogènes. Le gouvernement central choisit entre un processus budgétaire qui exclut le conseil régional (centralisation) et un autre qui l'inclut (décentralisation) dans la détermination des niveaux de budgets pour les programmes. On montre que le gouvernement central va décentraliser le processus budgétaire quand les niveaux de budget sont bas, et centraliser à des niveaux de budget plus élevés. Un déplacement de la décentralisation vers la centralisation résulte en une réduction du budget alloué au conseil régional.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".