MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W295214088

Cross-Border Local Development Policy: An Examination of Spacial Patterns

2000· article· en· W295214088 on OpenAlex
Laura A. Reese, Raymond A. Rosenfeld

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of economic development · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal governmentLocal economic developmentCensusEconomicsProperty taxPublic economicsGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsCompetition (biology)Economic growthPolitical sciencePopulationSociologyPublic administrationTax reform
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explicitly focuses on the relationship between geography or location and the economic development practices and policies within a community. More specifically, spatial relationships among communities on the Canadian/US border are examined to determine if similar approaches to local economic development can be identified based on spatial patterns regardless of nation of origin. Based on survey and census data in a geographic information system analysis limited national, regional, and state/provincial patterns in policy use are evident depending on the particular economic development policy considered. The lack of consistent patterns, however, directs policy analysis in a local direction to focus primarily on local issues--local structure, local economy, local players, and the local civic culture. ********** The literature on why certain cities engage in particular types of economic development techniques tends to be fragmented and often contradictory. It rests primarily on data from US cities, has failed to offer robust explanations of policy practice, and has relied on a relatively stable and limited set of independent variables. These have commonly included political factors (residential or business input, professionalism of decision-makers, decision-making practices), economic/fiscal measures (tax base/rate, economic growth measures, median income of residents, property value), or structural variables (form of government, age of community, inter-city competition). While such research has provided insights into economic development policy processes and current practice, it fails, in a collective sense, to provide a theoretically cohesive explanation of policy and policy outcomes. Research has pointed to several critical factors which appear to impact local economic development practices missing from much current analysis: resources devoted to the economic development enterprise; enabling legislation; professionalism of development officials; the extent of planning and evaluation, and spatial patterns among communities (Reese and Malmer, 1994; Ohren and Reese, 1996; Reese, 1997; Reese, 1998; Reese and Rosenfeld, 1999). This paper explicitly focuses on this last factor; the relationship between geography or location and the economic development practices and policies within a community. More specifically, spatial relationships among communities on the Canadian/US border will be examined to determine if similar approaches to local economic development can be identified based on spatial patterns regardless of nation of origin. Recent research on cross-border cooperation among European countries and between the US and Canada suggests that boundaries are becoming less important and are being replaced by regional variations (Marks, 1993; Hooghe, 1996, among others). Using Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis along with traditional statistical analyses, the following questions are examined: * Are spatial patterns evident in the types of economic development policies employed by cities along the Canadian/US border? * Do proximate communities employ similar packages of development incentives? * Is there more variation within or between nations in the types of policies employed or do policy approaches follow regional rather than national lines? SPATIAL LOCATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Geographic Location To date, there has been a general lack of attention to geographic or spatial patterns in the adoption and use of local economic development policies. Work on the diffusion of local policy innovation from the 1970's provided insights into the spatial dispersion of local policy. However, these findings have generally not been included in more recent work on economic development policy (an exception would be Krmenec, 1989). Local decisions to adopt particular new policies were found to be affected by neighborhood (emulation of policy in cities close by), hierarchy (diffusion from larger/older to smaller/newer cities), and central propagator (encouragement by state or federal policy) effects (see McVoy, 1940; Crain, 1966; Agnew et. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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