Show Me the Money: Side‐Payments and the Implementation of International Agreements in Federal Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federal systems face specific challenges in fulfilling their international commitments. In cases of shared jurisdiction, the federal government needs the sub-federal level to contribute to the implementation process. Both Canada and the EU have used side-payments to bring and keep on board reluctant and opposing provinces and member states in the implementation of international agreements. However, both cases have experienced the limits of this strategy. This article aims to make a theoretical contribution by identifying the causal conditions and processes that help explain the success and failure of using side-payments to encourage sub-federal support for the implementation of an international agreement. Based on the study of the implementation of the Paris Agreement in Canada and the EU, I develop a two-fold argument. First, side-payments can be an effective tool to persuade sub-federal governments if they are generally interested in contributing to implementation. They do not work for governments of powerful entities that are unwilling to implement. Second, sub-federal governments react to other actors’ conduct. Side-payments can keep reluctant governments of weak entities on board only as long as no alliance of powerful sub-federal entities is formed that resists the implementation of an international agreement.
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 | 0.000 | 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".