Multi-Level Governance and Ideological Rigidity: The Failure of Deep Federalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This article addresses multi-level governance by posing the following question: How can we have policies that are truly national and yet fully take into account the very significant differences among regions and communities? A major objective of this approach is to get beyond ideologically driven, dichotomous debates, which often leave the impression that the study of multi-level governance can be reduced to a choice between two alternatives—for example between neo-liberalism and the welfare state, or local autonomy and centralization. Our inquiry is focused on the implementation of a federal–provincial agreement on immigration and settlement in Vancouver. The implementation took place under the authority of an aggressively private market-oriented provincial government, and our close examination of the process and the fall-out from it suggests the existence of fundamental contradictions in the theory the government applied. In particular, we find a contradiction between the intention of introducing market mechanisms in order to reduce bureaucracy and the reality of new bureaucratic burdens that accompanied the introduction of market competition. We also confront the government's claims of democratic bona fides with the reality that the introduction of contracting out posed fundamental obstacles to government responsiveness to democratic demands. Our findings suggest that straight-line, ideologically driven approaches to governance are unlikely to meet the challenge of adapting national policy to the distinct requirements of particular communities. Résumé. Cet article étudie la gouvernance multi-paliers en posant la question suivante : « Comment formuler des politiques gouvernementales qui soient réellement nationales tout en répondant aux différences importantes qui existent entre les régions et les communautés? » Un objectif important de cette méthode est de mettre de côté les débats idéologiques dichotomiques qui donnent l'impression que l'étude de la gouvernance échelonnée se ramène à un choix entre les deux termes d'une alternative : entre néolibéralisme et État - providence, par exemple, ou entre autonomie locale et centralisation. Notre enquête porte sur l'exécution d'un accord fédéral provincial concernant l'immigration et l'intégration des immigrés à Vancouver. Le gouvernement provincial auquel il incombait d'exécuter cet accord était fortement axé sur la libre entreprise. Et les résultats de notre enquête suggèrent qu'il y ait des contradictions fondamentales dans la théorie appliquée par le gouvernement. L'intention de ce gouvernement de réduire la bureaucratie en introduisant la libre entreprise et la réalité que l'introduction de ladite libre entreprise a entraîné de nouvelles charges bureaucratiques, nous paraissent contradictoires. Il en est de même pour l'argument que l'action du gouvernement tienne de la bonne foi démocratique et la réalité que le recours aux sous-traitants crée des obstacles fondamentaux qui entravent la capacité du gouvernement de répondre aux réclamations démocratiques. Les résultats de notre enquête suggèrent que les conceptions de la gouvernance qui sont linéaires et rigoureusement calquées sur des idéologies ne pourraient probablement pas répondre au défi d'adapter la politique nationale aux besoins des communautés particulières.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".