Financing Confederation Revisited: The Economic State of the Federation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robin Boadway examines the development of fiscal arrangements and considers the substantial fiscal decentralization that has occurred in Canada over the past 20 years. Boadway makes the case that the fiscal arrangements have played an important role in improving the performance of the Canadian economy with respect to both equity and efficiency. But he also observes that over this period our federation has become the most decentralized federation in the world. Looking forward, he sees major challenges facing the fiscal arrangements. The equalization system and the political will to maintain it are in peril at the same time as disparities are likely to increase. The federal government has effectively lost control of the spending power, which has historically been one of the most powerful instruments at the hands of the federal government for managing the federation. This has left the federal government with no effective mechanism for managing the economic union. The income tax system is becoming disharmonized as provinces are engaged in competitive reductions in income tax progressivity. Attempts to arrive at cooperative solutions by federal-provincial negotiation have not been successful. Boadway believes that the decentralized Canadian federation could evolve into one in which the provinces behave “cooperatively” with respect to the national objectives of equity and efficiency. However, he sees little evidence that this is happening, and argues that an overall vision is needed. Unfortunately, Canada does not have an institution like the former Economic Council that is currently capable of developing such a vision.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".