The MPA/MPP in the Anglo-democracies: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Should one expect convergence among MPA/MPP programs around the world, and in particularly among programs in the “Anglo-sphere” or among the Anglo-democracies, defined here as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For reasons of shared history and language, one might expect convergence, but there are counter-arguments as well that note, for example, the rich diversity among American programs alone. The paper analyzes 99 programs drawn from among these countries to find an answer. The analysis is wider in scope and more granular than anything that has been done to date, with data that allow comparisons of: (1) subject matter emphasis between policy and management, (2) the amount of required quantitative content, and (3) program length (number of standardized courses required to graduate). After illustrating a standardized metric of comparison we show that the convergence hypothesis cannot be sustained. Our conclusion entertains several conjectures about why this might be the case.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".