Institutional Barriers to Associative City-region Governance: The Politics of Institution-building and Economic Governance in 'Canada's Technology Triangle'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been argued that collaborative and associative forms of governance can enhance the economic competitiveness of cities and regions. Institutionalist approaches to urban and regional economic development have been particularly influential in emphasising the potential role that collaboration between firms, governance agencies, labour and supporting institutions can play in enabling communities to promote progressive competitiveness. At the same time, there has been relatively little discussion and empirical analysis of the actual process of institutional change and institution-building that characterise city-regions situated in liberal political economies that are not historically endowed with 'pre-existing' stocks of social capital and associative governance. In addition, institutionalist perspectives on urban and regional economic change have produced economistic explanations, while underplaying the importance of political factors. This paper offers an analysis of the various institutional barriers to associative governance by examining the case of 'Canada's Technology Triangle', a city-region which has experienced several attempts to develop associative governance institutions since the early 1990s. The evidence from this case study suggests that the experience of institution-building in this city-region has been intertwined with a struggle to create a regional scale of engagement for a range of governance actors. The analysis in this paper demonstrates the importance of paying careful attention to the factors that shape the political mobilisation of actors into associative institutional structures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".