MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance

2000· article· en· W2020982650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Howlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesBureaucracyGlobalizationCorporate governancePublic administrationManagementPoliticsEconomicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Modem governments face a paradox in that, theoretically, their bureaucratic capacity for action in terms of knowledge, expertise, budgets and personnel resources is high, while, at the same time, phenomena such as globalization and democratization have severely undermined their ability to directly control social outcomes. Recent works by Canadian, Dutch, American, British and French scholars have begun to describe a common set of policy instruments contemporary governments now use to indirectly steer social actors towards their preferred policy options. Unlike traditional “substantive” instruments, which directly affect the delivery of goods and services in society, these “procedural” policy instruments are intended to manage state‐societal interactions in order to assure general support for government aims and initiatives. Used on an ad hoc basis in the past, these tools have become an essential feature of modern governance. This article advances the study of these procedural policy instruments by developing a taxonomy and outlining the rationale for choosing between particular instrument types. Sommaire: Les gouvernements se trouvent aujourd'hui face à un paradoxe: d'une part, leur pouvoir d'intervention est en principe important au niveau des connais‐sances, de I'expertise, des budgets et du personnel; d'autre part, les phénomènes tels que la mondialisation et la démocratisation ont fortement sapé leur capacité d'influer directement sur les résultats sociaux. Des travaux récents d'auteurs canadiens, néer‐landais, américains, britanniques et français amorcent la description d'un ensemble commun d'instruments directifs dont se servent actuellement les gouvernements pour orienter indirectement les intervenants sociaux vers les options politiques que les gouvernements préfèrent. À I'encontre des instruments classiques « substantifs » influant directement sur la prestation de biens et services au sein de la société, ces instruments « procéduraux » visent é gkrer l'interaction État‐société de manière à ce que les initiatives et objectifs gouvernementaux reçoivent l'appui de tous. Utilisés de manière ponctuelle dans le passé, ces outils sont devenus un éléments essentiel de la gouvemance moderne. Cet article fait progresser l'étude de ces instruments de procédure pour l'élaboration des politiques, en définissant une taxonomie et en pré‐cisant les raisons pour lesquelles un type d'instrument particulier serait préférable à un autre.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.056
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations352
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207