MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152877979 · doi:10.1080/13597566.2010.507401

How Centralized Federations Avoid Over-centralization

2011· article· en· W2152877979 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional & Federal Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismDecentralizationCentralized governmentGovernment (linguistics)Central governmentPoint (geometry)Cooperative federalismDevolution (biology)Public administrationPolitical scienceLocal governmentEconomic systemBusinessEconomicsMarket economyPoliticsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The focus of this article is centralized types of federations that have been neglected both in the economic literature on federalism and in comparative federal studies. The starting point is that countries with centralized institutional solutions are subject to encroaching behaviour by the central government and are threatened with shifting further towards 'over-centralization'. 'Over-centralization' reduces federal member states to pure 'agents' of central government. By comparing four federal countries subject to centralization trends (Australia, Austria, Germany and Switzerland) and combinations of causal factors, an attempt is made to ascertain why some federations are locked in 'over-centralized' institutional solutions while others are able to ward off such an outcome. Keywords: Centralisationcomparative federalismdynamics of federalism Notes An exception is provided by Lemco Citation(1991). However, see Blanchard and Shleifer Citation(2000) and Parker and Thornton Citation(2007) with regard to China and Russia. Over-centralization is a state of affairs in which the central government has grown "so forceful that the subunits either rise up in challenge or wither into nonexistence, legally or in practice" (Bednar, Citation2009: 2). Over-decentralization can be seen as a state of affairs in which subunits have become so powerful and autonomous that the coherence of the federation is endangered. Encroaching can mean either to reduce the authority of subunits for one's own ends or to shift costs and other burdens to subunits (Bednar, Citation2009: 69). Self-enforcing mechanisms mean mostly institutional safeguards that deter actors, either the central government or subunits, from breaking with the status quo and respect the previously agreed settlement of co-operation. Of course, Canada has made its way in the other direction: from a more centralized federation to a more decentralized one. The reasons for this are well known but will not interest us here. 'Cultural federalism' (Hueglin and Fenna, Citation2006: 57–58) or 'nationality based federal units' (Kymlicka, Citation2005: 277). 'Territorial federalism' (Hueglin and Fenna, Citation2006: 57–58) or 'regional based federal units' (Kymlicka, Citation2005: 277). See Münch Citation(2008) for education policy. See, in general, Galligan Citation(1995), Selway Citation(2001) and Braun Citation(2005). One distinguishes between laws that need the consent of the Bundesrat in matters that directly concern the affairs of subunits and laws that do not need this consent in all other matters. Before the reform of 2006, the number of laws with consent needed was about half of all laws; after the reform it seems to have gone down to 30–40%. Subunit representatives in both countries have become principally partisan representatives and not representatives who defend regional interests (see, for Austria, Erk, Citation2004: 7, fn 27). This corresponds to the preference structure of the population which is in line with partisan cleavages and not with territorially based cleavages. Double majority means that a referendum is accepted if there is both a majority of the people and of the majority of the 26 cantons. Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, 29 Nov 2008 (http://www.coag.gov.au). Either because such veto-powers are lacking or, if they exist, because they cannot be used, as in the case of congruent majorities between the first and second chamber. If a condition is not present, this is usually denoted in small letters. If, therefore, party opposition is present we write it as 'f'. A multiplication sign indicates multiple causation. Variables that are multiplied are seen as individually necessary parts of a jointly sufficient combination. A 'plus' sign (sum) indicates equifinality. In this case both the combinations of causal variables on the left and on the right side of the plus sign are sufficient for the outcome.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.185 · 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