Globalization, Canadian Family Policy, and the Omissions of Neoliberalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between globalization, family structures, and social policy is complex, uneven, and evolving.This Article examines social policy reform in Canada during the past two decades in order to advance three propositions about the relationship between globalization and public policy: first, the influence of globalization on social policy is neither direct nor uniform but, instead, strongly mediated by changing political rationalities; second, neoliberalism is most productively understood as a contested political rationality that weaves foundational commitments to the market, market logics, and individualization into new public policies and regulatory fields and onto existing ones; and, finally, analyses of contemporary family policy should be as concerned with the ways in which governments frame social policy reforms as with the amount that they spend on them.Describing recent policy interventions in family income support, maternity, parental benefits, and care policies, this Article describes how Canadian social policy reform relies on fiscalization, which presupposes that relatively modest payments to individuals and families or tax deductions and credits can stand in for social research and planning, democratic debate, and public infrastructure.Fiscalization also imagines that families will use relatively small increments in income for their designated policy goal in an era when a great many families are coping with declining incomes, unemployment, and rising debt.Although income support is necessary for a growing number of Canadian families, this Article concludes that social policy reform has yet to adequately respond to contemporary family challenges, including work-life balance and a growing care deficit.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".