MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413165338 · doi:10.1111/ropr.70044

The State of Policy Capacity Problems in Africa: The Viewpoint of Historical Institutionalism From Ghana

2025· article· en· W4413165338 on OpenAlexaff
Frank L. K. Ohemeng

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Policy Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalismState (computer science)New institutionalismPolitical scienceEconomic systemEconomicsDevelopment economicsPolitical economyPoliticsLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Why is policy capacity still a problem after years of capacity‐building initiatives in Africa? Many African states continue to lack policy capacity. Despite recognizing the limited policy capacity issues on the continent and all the capacity‐development initiatives that continue to take place, there has been a dearth of theorizing as to why this problem persists. How then can one explain the apparent dilemma? The failure to theorize policy capacity problems on the continent is extremely unfortunate. To explain this limited policy‐capacity problem, we turn our attention to historical institutionalism. Using Ghana as a case study, the paper attempts to demonstrate, from a historical institutional perspective, why capacity problems on the continent continue to exist. It is argued that the policy‐capacity problem stems from the inability of governments to bring about a seismic shift in thinking, distinct from that developed under colonial rule, with its over‐reliance on expatriates and consultants and path dependency. This paper constitutes desktop research and draws from both primary and secondary sources.

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)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Policy ResearchSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207