MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007797571 · doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00314

The Comparative Economics of EU ‘Subsidiarity’: Lessons from development/regional economic debates

2001· article· en· W2007797571 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidiarityDecentralizationEuropean unionPosition (finance)Political scienceEquity (law)EconomyHumanitiesEconomicsWelfare economicsInternational tradeLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term ‘substantive subsidiarity’ characterizes a radical position in the major debate in the European Union (EU) on how to structure territorially‐based power in a closely interlinked economy. A similar debate took place in the period between the 1950s and the early 1990s over the need for radical reform of spatial economic and power structures in Canada and less developed countries. The difficulty in constructing supporting arguments from economics for both these positions can be better understood by looking at the whole range of economic thought on spatial structures. A characterization of this range into three models reveals how economics generally supports centralizing tendencies. The assumptions required to make a case for stronger, more local authorities in the EU, Canada or less developed economies are shown to be restrictive. The article concludes that the case for substantive subsidiarity in the EU, which calls for radical decentralization to more local levels of government, claiming efficiency and equity gains, faces a similar challenge to that faced by earlier economists writing on less developed economies. L’expression ‘subsidiarité rélle’ définit une position radicale dans le grand débat qui anime l’Union Européenne sur la manière de structurer un pouvoir sur un territoire, dans une économie interdépendante. Entre les années 1950 et le début des années 1990, des discussions similaires se sont déroulées sur la nécessité de réformer profondément les structures spatiales du pouvoir et de l’économie au Canada et dans des pays sous‐développés. Dans les deux cas, on peut plus aisément appréhender la difficulté de trouver dans l’économie une source d’arguments favorables, si on observe l’éventail des pensées économiques sur les structures spatiales; en ramenant cette palette à trois modèles caractéristiques, on peut établir que l’économie penche généralement vers la centralisation. Par ailleurs, l’article démontre la nature restrictive des hypothèses permettant de dépeindre des autorités à la fois plus fortes et plus locales dans l’UE, au Canada ou dans des économies en développement. L’article conclut que la défense d’une subsidiarité réelle au sein de l’UE – appelant à une décentralisation radicale à des niveaux plus locaux de gouvernement, tout en revendiquant des gains d’efficacité et d’équité– est confrontée à un défi similaire à celui qu’ont rencontré les économistes passés quand ils écrivaient sur les économies en développement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it