Policy Transfer and Instrument Constituency: Explaining the Adoption of Conditional Cash Transfer in the Philippines
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
Abstract Transnational policy transfer is a well‐documented phenomenon with studies from across many disciplines. However, the literature tends to over‐theorize but under‐operationalize what is transferred and how it is transferred. A significant issue in this regard concerns ‘agency’: that is, who is supplying and who is demanding policy lessons and examples. This paper highlights a relatively new concept in comparative policy studies, that of the ‘instrument constituency’, within the framework of transnational policymaking. It argues that instrument constituencies or groups of actors unified by their strong affinity with a specific policy tool are key agents in the transfer process, acting as suppliers and brokers of policy ideas, constantly searching to match their preferred solutions to policy problems. As this paper will show, incorporating such constituencies into policy transfer studies allows a better understanding of transfer as part of a sequential process of diffusion, and how knowledge about a policy instrument is assembled and transferred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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