MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401547933 · doi:10.33182/ipr.v2i1.3352

The Perils of Global Governance: Why has the European Union Failed to Address Corruption in Kosovo?

2024· article· en· W4401547933 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Persaud

Bibliographic record

VenueIstanbul Policy Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClientelismEuropean unionLanguage changePolitical scienceDemocracyCorporate governancePoliticsPolitical economyPublic administrationEconomicsEconomic policyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the Kosovo War ended on June 10, 1999, the European Union (EU) has allocated vast influxes of official development assistance (ODA) to Kosovo, including humanitarian aid, technical assistance and financial grants. In large, this support has sought to facilitate accountable, democratic governance that fosters ‘uncorrupt’ institutions within the country. Although the EU has made considerable advances in this pursuit, Kosovo’s public institutions remain riddled with corruption, notably access payments, which impede the development of transparent governing bodies. Accordingly, this paper conducts a critical analysis to assess why the European Union has been unable to address widespread corruption in Kosovo. It contends that during the international post-conflict reconstruction of Kosovo, the EU provided ODA to local political elites who used such resources to establish clientelist networks that undermine accountable, democratic governance. This advent created ‘path dependency’, making institutional reform difficult thereafter. Second, ODA programs from the EU have imposed market-oriented reforms that have directly and indirectly nurtured clientelism when implemented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIstanbul Policy ReviewSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207