Bureaucrats as policy makers: Minority accommodation and exclusion in ethnic nation‐states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Why do some ethnic nation‐states employ simultaneously inconsistent policies toward ethnic minorities, accommodating them in one sphere but excluding them from another? This article argues that this incoherent treatment of minorities results from the delegation of authority to bureaucrats. Building on the principal‐agent approach and nationalism scholarship, this work develops a causal mechanism explaining the conditions under which bureaucrats can shift state policies toward ethnic minorities and the types of policy preferences they seek to materialize. Defining policy problems, strategically framing optimal solutions, and building support for policy initiatives are the mechanisms through which nonelected officials challenge the existing status quo and seek to shift state policies toward ethnic minorities. This theoretical framework is applied to education and land policies in Israel vis‐à‐vis the Palestinian Arab citizens to illustrate how entrepreneurial bureaucrats can bring about diverse policy outcomes toward the same minority. Related Articles Ben‐Bassat, Avi, and Momi Dahan. 2018. “Biased Policy and Political Behavior: The Case of Uneven Removal of Elected Mayors in Israel.” Politics & Policy 46(6): 912–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12280 . Harel‐Shalev, Ayelet. 2009. “Lingual and Educational Policy toward ‘Homeland Minorities’ in Deeply Divided Societies: India and Israel as Case Studies.” Politics & Policy 37(5): 951–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2009.00206.x . Tusalem, Rollin F. 2015. “Ethnic Minority Governments, Democracy, and Human Rights.” Politics & Policy 43(4): 502–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12125 .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".