Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I explore the key elements of the mode of regulation operating at the urban scale in Toronto's postwar period to learn what it was that inspired an entire generation of scholars to call Toronto the ‘city that works' in this period. Despite the significant amount of literature discussing the general character of regulation operating at the city-region scale in the Fordist or managerial period of urban development, it is argued that surprisingly little empirical research has actually documented what allegedly made these Fordist metropolitan regions ‘work‘. Drawing on archival research in addition to insights from Canadian applied regulation theory and from an analysis of Canada's changing fiscal federalism, I argue that, although Toronto did develop within the context of a Fordist regime of accumulation, the particular elements of the mode of regulation it developed at the urban scale were distinctive and important in providing the conditions underlying the economic success of the region. Toronto may have benefited disproportionately from national regulatory policies. However, its economic dynamism also constituted one of the cornerstones of the nation's economic and social viability. Further, its more localized regulatory structures and social context had a specific institutional and cultural richness, which, in concert with its highly developed economic structure, served to stave off many of the crisis tendencies being felt by other industrial regions in the 1970s and 1980s. One of the principal and unique institutional innovations was the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (’Metro'), which can be regarded as a key (although hitherto underemphasized) component of the Canadian Fordist regime of accumulation. More than just a conduit through which nationally driven Keynesian welfare programs were delivered, Metro was also an innovator of unique urban-based postwar development policies. I conclude by demonstrating what this story of postwar Toronto can tell us more generally about urban government and governance under Fordism, and about the managerial paradigm and the regulation approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".