MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096974502 · doi:10.1080/0042098042000226957

Privatising Cape Town: From Apartheid to Neo-liberalism in the Mother City

2004· article· en· W2096974502 on OpenAlexaff
David A. McDonald, Laı̈la Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegemonyIdeologyDominance (genetics)LiberalismPoliticsSociologyCapeUrban politicsGovernment (linguistics)Political economyAutonomyPublic administrationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most remarkable features of the post -apartheid political landscape in South Africa is the increasingly hegemonic nature of neo-liberal thought and practice. This ideological dominance is most noticeable at the national level but has trickled down to urban policy-making as well. This paper documents the new urban neo-liberalism in the city of Cape Town. Based on extensive interviews, policy analysis and a critique of the track record of local government since 1996, the paper provides the first comprehensive overview of the character and extent of neo-liberalism in a large South African city. The empirical data are coupled with an analysis of the structural and ideological pressures from the national and international levels that have given rise to this policy focus, and an assessment of the room for alternative policy manoeuvre at the local level. We argue that there is considerable potential for policy autonomy in Cape Town, but that non-neo-liberal policy alternatives have been largely ignored, abandoned or intentionally shut out by the majority of senior decision-makers in the city, making for a self-reinforcing loop of neo-liberal discourse and practice at different levels of government in South Africa and with international funding bodies and advisors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban StudiesSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207