Troubles, partnerships and possibilities: a study of the Making Belfast Work development initiative in Northern Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the theory and operation of development partnerships through an analytical study of the Making Belfast Work (MBW) Initiative in Northern Ireland. This initiative of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment contributed to the building of the current Northern Irish Peace Process. It illustrates the difficulties faced by a government in engaging in socio‐economic development in one of the world's most difficult policy environments. The history of the MBW initiative also provides insight into the interaction of two contending models for organizing European Society, namely ‘Regulated Capitalism’ and ‘Neoliberalism’ and the relationship of these models to partnership theory. This study argues that motivations for the development of partnerships in Belfast defy easy theoretical classification; yet empirical evidence suggests that a twin‐track approach—one from above, the European Union; and one from below, of indigenous policy evolution—have together through policy diffusion made MBW a leading pioneer in partnership theory and practice. The article discusses the literature on partnership within New Public Administration outlining ideas on various classifications of partnerships operative in the public sector. Particular attention is paid to how partnerships of societal actors and government can effectively involve the local community through community development approaches. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".