THE THEORY AND EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT MIXED ENTERPRISES
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 This paper addresses some of the gaps in both classification and theory pertaining to local government MEs and presents tentative predictions concerning the performance of local MEs. As a preliminary, we identify the different forms of entities with ME characteristics and place them within a comprehensive taxonomy. Most local MEs provide local public goods. Consequently, their primary goal should be to improve social welfare. This goal should drive both theory development and the evaluation of ME performance. We present three principal‐agent models that offer contrasting theories of ME performance with differing assumptions about the motivations and behaviour of the relevant actors: (1) a ‘best of both worlds’ model; (2) a ‘worst of both worlds’ model, and (3) a ‘profit collusion world’ model. We indirectly test these models by reviewing and assessing the empirical performance of MEs, focusing on their social welfare effects, or using related measures of performance where we have no direct evidence on social welfare effects. Finally, we draw on the theory and empirical evidence to make some predictions about the behaviour and performance of local MEs.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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