Un-joined-up government: intergovernmental relations and citizenship rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there are obvious connections between devolution in general and citizenship rights, the relationship between intergovernmental relations and citizenship rights is not immediately evident. At least between 1999 and 2007, intergovernmental relations were a relatively obscure and technical aspect of the working of devolution in the United Kingdom (as it is in many federal systems), more suited to discussions of the practicalities of public administration than to issues of principle like citizenship rights, or the macro-level discussions of the working of welfare states that often accompany them. However, this chapter will argue that the two are connected; that the UK's approach to intergovernmental relations helps to explain the disjointed approach to citizenship rights that has manifested itself since devolution and reinforces such a trend. This chapter will look at two aspects of intergovernmental relations. First, there is the division of powers between the UK parliament and government and the devolved institutions of Scotland, Wales and (intermittently) Northern Ireland. Second, there is the nature of those relations – the substance of negotiations and agreements reached between governments, how the substantive relationship changes over time, and the processes by which those governments involved deal with each other. This approach has a long pedigree in understanding the working of federal systems (see, for example, Watts, 1989, for comparative discussion; Simeon, Richard, 2006b, or Stevenson, 2005, for Canada; Galligan et al, 1991, for Australia; or Jeffery, 1999, for Germany), which can also be applied to the very different conditions of the UK (as in Trench, 2007). (It has been used, although with less success, in understanding relations between central and local government in the UK; see Rhodes, 1988, for a discussion.) Such relations are particularly important for states undergoing a process of decentralisation or devolution, because of the often-limited powers available to constituent unit governments in such systems and the dynamic nature of the process of constitutional change (Agranoff, 2004). In this context, the UK is rather unusual, as unlike most welfare states in federal or decentralised systems (such as those discussed in Obinger et al, 2005), it is decentralising a welfare state that has already been built around the institutional framework of a unitary or union state, rather than building its welfare state to take account of a division of powers between federal and state governments.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".