Narrative stories, institutional rules, and the politics of pension policy in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Deborah Stone’s Policy Paradox stresses the role of narrative stories in the construction of policy problems. This article takes a critical look at the Policy Paradox and at the claim that paying close attention to narratives is essential to the analysis of policy change. Drawing on recent scholarship on the role of ideas in public policy, the article shows that the analysis of narratives is part of a broader intellectual project associated with the ideational turn in policy analysis. The article explains how the analysis of narrative stories should take institutional factors into account, which can shape policy decisions. To illustrate these theoretical claims, the article analyzes the debate over public pension reform in the United States and Canada during the last 25 years. More specifically, the article compares the reform of the Canada Pension Plan during the mid-1990s and the failed push to privatize US Social Security during the Bill Clinton and the George W. Bush presidencies. The analysis stresses that, while narrative stories shape problem definition, institutional legacies influence policy adoption.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".