MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414391724 · doi:10.3126/fwr.v3i1.84663

Assessing the Culture of Deliberation in Local Governance: Evidence from Four Municipalities in Kailali, Nepal

2025· article· en· W4414391724 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFar Western Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversity Grants Commission
KeywordsDeliberationDeliberative democracyTransparency (behavior)GrassrootsLocal governmentCorporate governanceCitizen journalismPublic participationStakeholder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study critically examines deliberative practices within the executive bodies (karyapalika) of local governments in Nepal’s evolving federal governance system, drawing empirical insights from four municipalities in the Kailali district, Nepal. Following the promulgation of the 2015 Constitution and the enactment of the Local Government Operation Act (LGOA) in 2017, Nepal laid a robust legal foundation for participatory governance at the grassroots level. This research explores how deliberative decision-making processes are implemented in practice and evaluates the extent to which local governments fulfill their constitutional commitments to inclusiveness and accountability. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, the study integrates questionnaire surveys, qualitative interviews and observations, collecting data from 511 respondents, including elected representatives, administrative staff, and service recipients. The findings indicate that, although legal provisions promote deliberative governance, practical implementation is often constrained by political dominance, procedural rigidity, and limited stakeholder participation. Quantitative findings indicate that approximately 32 percent of key stakeholders (elected representatives and staff) express satisfaction with the deliberative culture of the local executive, while the remainders are neutral or dissatisfied. In contrast, qualitative insights highlight challenges, including the dominance of the ruling party and the influence of individual authority (mayor/chairperson), which impact the decision-making process in local governance. The results indicate a substantial connection between deliberative mechanisms, such as the holding of regular executive meetings, and the transparency in decision-making, which significantly aids in managing citizen grievances. Furthermore, participatory monitoring practices are often merely symbolic, characterized by tokenism, and are not well comprehended by the citizens. The research indicates that deliberative democracy within Nepal’s local governance is still in a nascent stage. To unlock its full potential, it is essential to strengthen institutional capacity, promote civic awareness, ensure inclusive participation, and reinforce regulative mechanisms. Addressing these deficiencies is crucial for embedding substantive deliberative practices into Nepal's decentralized governance framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.223 · 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