Instrument constituencies and transnational policy diffusion: the case of conditional cash transfers
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
The purpose of this paper is to improve knowledge of the transnational diffusion of public policies. It argues that existing studies on the subject do not provide an adequate understanding of the mechanisms through which diffusion takes place, nor do they sufficiently address the roles specific organizations and individuals play in driving or determining the policy transfer process. We address these shortcomings by studying the diffusion of conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes from Latin America to Ghana and the Philippines over the past decade. We use the concept of ‘instruments constituency’ to delineate and trace the various actors and channels involved in the diffusion of CCTs. The comparative case studies show that these constituencies, dedicated to the articulation, adoption, and expansion of particular policy instruments, are central players in transnational diffusion of policies. This finding has significant implications for the study of policy transfer and diffusion, identifying a heretofore neglected actor in these processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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