Political Representation of Minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina: How Reserved Seats Affect Minority Representatives’ Influence on Decision-making and Perceived Substantive Representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relying on a subjective and procedural understanding of substantive representation as communication, responsiveness, and accountability, this article examines the effects of reserved seats for minorities in local assemblies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Through comparative qualitative case studies of eight municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the article sheds light on the effectiveness of various configurations of political representation of minorities in terms of the actual influence on decision-making on the one hand, and accountability of the minority representatives to their constituency on the other—in particular in relation to the political background and party affiliation of minority representatives. First, it was found that reserved seats have had an overall positive, but in reality rather modest effect in terms of strengthening the political voice of minorities in decision-making. Second, it was found that the party affiliation of minority representatives is a crucial factor in establishing and effectively maintaining the relationship of substantive representation. While procedural substantive representation of constituent peoples in minority situations benefits from an ethnic party framework, lack of party affiliation positively affects substantive representation of national minorities proper.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".