Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last two decades, aid organizations, led by the World Bank, have advanced legal and political reform as a necessary adjunct of international development assistance. This move has been challenged by critics who argue that institutional reform is inextricably tied to economic liberalization, that it is a form of cultural imperialism, and that it tends to displace domestic struggles for democratic self-determination, replacing them with a uniform model of atomized rights. This paper does not reject those concerns out of hand, but it does argue that they are often exaggerated and liable to undermine a valuable sense of international solidarity. It seeks to redirect the criticisms, confining and targeting them more carefully. It does so first by examining how the institutional reform agenda works in practice, drawing specifically on the experience of legal reform in Vietnam. From that example, it assesses the possibilities, limitations, and constraints of international institutional reform and provides recommendations on how reform might be pursued so as to reinforce, and not abandon, the values of transparency, consistency, popular participation and government responsiveness that animate, at its best, the institutional reform agenda.
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 | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".