Factors facilitating the adoption of wellbeing budgets in New Zealand: a case study with budget actors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New Zealand made international waves when it implemented a wellbeing budget in 2019. We investigated the factors which facilitated the adoption of this novel budgeting policy. In interviews with 22 key informants from New Zealand’s central government, most interviewees (90% and over) emphasized the impact of politics, internal direction, and the international policy environment as key factors of effect on the formulation and adoption of wellbeing budgeting. Results of our study add new insights to Good’s theory that predicts similar motivations and behaviors to be expected from groups of budget actors who inhabit monolithic roles of politicians, treasury officials, and ministerial bureaucrats. Rather, even with inherent tensions within budget actor groups, they can be positioned to debate differing approaches that lead to the aim of adopting innovative policy. Wellbeing budgetary reform may be undertaken with a combination of legislation, fostering public sector debate, and responding to global conditions of uncertainty.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it