Civic Capital and the Dynamics of Intermunicipal Cooperation for Regional Economic Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis concentrates on the interplay of structural and societal factors in the development of regional governance though a comparative study of two Canadian (Toronto and Waterloo) and two German (Frankfurt and the Rhein-Neckar) city regions. It was inspired by the tendency, in both scholarship and practice, to turn to formal institutional reform to solve problems of regional coordination. Debates of new regionalism advocate a role for governance solutions, which encourage a broader spectrum of actors to engage in the policy process. However, the emphasis in most jurisdictions has remained on formal, institutionalized structures, imposed by senior levels of government. As a result, the construction and potential for bottom-up and collectively negotiated regional solutions are typically under-explored. This thesis builds a case for intermunicipal cooperation as an alternative approach to regional coordination, uniting the participatory concept of regional governance with functional flexibility of cooperative networks. It analyses what factors affect the emergence of these networks for governance in three areas of regional economic development: regional marketing, cultural policy and regional transportation. It argues that while regional structural, institutional and contextual variables are useful in understanding the emergence of development partnerships, they tend to have different effects in different cases. The thesis formulates and applies an innovative concept – civic capital – to capture the dynamics of building and sustaining regional governance networks. It is both a critique and extension of social capital approaches to regional development. Using the four cases the thesis argues that, where civic capital is high intermunicipal cooperation is more likely regardless of institutional and structural contexts. Consequently, the thesis makes a theoretical contribution to both literature on intermunicipal cooperation and broader debates on the dynamics of regional governance, development and social networks.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".