Effecting change and transformation through regionalization: theory versus practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: As a result of increasing social, economic, and political interdependencies, within, between, and across jurisdictions and policy fields, there is much interest in establishing new regional forms of governance and management. The sustainability of current practices and processes are being questioned by critics and there is much pressure to bring about structural reforms. The primary objective of the paper is to analyse the various challenges associated with the process of renewing governance based on the regional integration model, but from interdisciplinary, comparative‐jurisdictional and policy field perspectives. Effecting change requires not only defining a problem, but also employing strategies that involve sharing information, problem‐solving, decision‐making, and responsibility across interactive state‐society networks and existing boundaries, whether defined by policy field or jurisdiction. Replacing and challenging sovereignty, capacity, and autonomy of embedded regimes is often easier said than done. In the past, much of the discourse over regionalization has been more prescriptive then analytical. To understand why the pace and direction of reform has never kept up with the promises of the regional idea, the paper provides a detailed critical account of pressures that pushed the issue on the agenda, and why, despite the advent of new forces, building support for alternate approaches has produced regional reforms that are limited in scope. Sommaire: Étant donné les interdépendances sociales, économiques et politiques croissantes au sein, entre et parmi les juridictions et secteurs politiques, un fort intérêt est accordé au renouvellement de la gouvernance. La viabilité des pratiques et processus actuels est remise en question par les critiques et de fortes pressions sont exercées pour introduire des réformes structurelles. Le principal objectif de cet article est d'analyser les divers défis associés au processus de renouvellement de la gouvernance basé sur le modèle d'intégration régionale, mais selon des perspectives interdisciplinaires, comparatives, juridictionnelles et de secteur politique. Pour introduire des changements, il faut non seulement définir le problème, mais également employer des stratégies qui supposent le partage de l'information, la résolution de problèmes, la prise de décisions et la responsabilité dans les réseaux interactifs entre la société et l'État et entre les frontières existantes, qu'elles soient définies par le secteur politique ou la juridiction. Remplacer et remettre en question la souveraineté, la capacité et l'autonomie de régimes enracinés est plus facile à dire qu'à faire. Par le passé, une grande partie du discours sur la régionalisation a été plus prescriptif qu'analytique. Pour comprendre la raison pour laquelle le rythme et l'orientation de la réforme n'ont jamais suivi les promesses de la régionalisation, l'article fournit un compte rendu critique et détaillé des pressions qui ont placé la question à l'ordre du jour et explique la raison pour laquelle, malgré l'intervention de nouvelles forces, le renforcement du soutien à des méthodes de rechange eut pour résultat des réformes régionales à portée limitée.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".