Are you Talking to us? How Subnational Governments Respond to Global Sustainable Development Governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Subnational governments (such as provinces, states or regions) are largely ignored in international policy documents on sustainable development, and they are not recognized in multilateral decision‐making. Nevertheless, many subnational governments have launched sustainable development policies. This article examines to what extent they take global sustainable development governance into account when doing so. The theoretical framework presents two mechanisms of international influence, building mostly upon the policy convergence literature. That framework is then applied on a comparative policy analysis of five subnational governments: North Holland (the Netherlands), North Rhine‐Westphalia (Germany), Wallonia (Belgium), Flanders (Belgium) and Quebec (Canada). The findings show that subnational governments with a distinct territorial identity react differently on international trends from other subnational governments. Flanders and Quebec, which have such an identity, follow the rules and decision‐making procedures of the international sustainable development regime, and they translate the norms and principles into their policies. The article also finds that the influence of international policies is determined by the active participation of subnational governments in multilateral decision‐making. Finally, it is argued that the legitimacy pressures exerted by international organizations on lower‐level governments to adopt certain policies have a varying impact on subnational governments dependent on their domestic context. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it