MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951210740 · doi:10.25904/1912/1949

Subsidiarity's Quest for Meaning: Understanding the Political Culture of Subsidiarity in Australia, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom

2018· dissertation· en· W2951210740 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob Deem

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsSubsidiarityMeaning (existential)Political scienceGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationPoliticsLaw and economicsSociologyLawEuropean unionEpistemologyBusinessPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigates ‘subsidiarity’, a principle commonly understood as a preference for authority to be exercised as close as possible to the people. Specifically, the research challenges criticisms that subsidiarity has no real meaning, both in the sense that it is difficult to conceptualise or define (i.e., what does ‘subsidiarity’ mean?), and because some argue it has little benefit or importance for society (i.e. it is meaningless). Against these accusations, the thesis presents a new, clearer way of conceptualising subsidiarity, and evidence from a survey of public attitudes conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom. First, it addresses the difficulty of pinpointing subsidiarity’s meaning in a definitional sense by drawing together various developments and approaches in thinking about subsidiarity, to propose a conceptualisation of the principle as being a product of decentralist (government at the lowest possible level), non-absorptionist (higher orders should not absorb the functions of lower orders) and supportive (higher orders should help lower orders to help themselves) approaches to governance. This new way of understanding subsidiarity provides a meaning to subsidiarity that is clear enough to be useful, but also flexible enough to accommodate the different interpretations used in academia and government. Second, it demonstrates that subsidiarity is meaningful to citizens by measuring public attitudes towards decentralist, non-absorptionist, and supportive elements of subsidiarity in Australia, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom. Exploring public attitudes is an important departure from previous approaches, which have almost exclusively relied on analysis of constitutions, court decisions and government policy to understand the principle’s meaning and impact in society. Using insights from the way citizens of these countries value decentralism, non-absorption and support, the thesis demonstrates widespread attachment to subsidiarity, but it also reveals variations in support for these conceptions, suggesting distinct ‘subsidiarity political cultures’ consistent with the history, institutions and broader political culture of each country. For example, it shows that on average, Canadians and Germans value the principle the most, but that German subsidiarity political culture tends to value non-absorption more highly than the other elements, while Canadians are more attached to supportive subsidiarity. Meanwhile, Australians remain comparatively unattached to subsidiarity as a decentralist principle, but place great value on the idea that higher levels of government should support lower levels, opening significant new lines of inquiry for how reform in Australia could be approached in the future. These findings affirm that subsidiarity does have enduring meaning to citizens as a principle of political organisation, but also suggest that differences in subsidiarity’s meaning can and should be embraced as a guide to reforms that may better reflect citizens’ values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.026
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)Same topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207