Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federalism can be a conflict-prevention mechanism, but some political scientists and economists have also endorsed certain features of the system as being likely to establish proper market incentives for economic growth. Most developing countries have ignored economists' recommendations for proper design of federal and decentralized institutions, particularly with respect to hardening of the budget constraint and the enforcement of an open, common market. The first logic of perverse fiscal federalism is secession deterrence: for many governments, preventing ethnic conflict seems to require fiscally deleterious institutions. In ethnoregionally diverse federations such as India, South Africa, and Indonesia, the common market is often not enforced, and tax decentralization falls far short of the recommendations of orthodox economists and international lending institutions. The second logic of perverse fiscal federalism is found in developing federations without ethnonational minorities: in many of these states, personalist electoral institutions preserve excessive expenditure decentralization with a soft budget constraint. Examples in this category have included Brazil and Argentina. While ethnic diversity has helped to preserve or to create relatively robust forms of fiscal federalism in Western democracies such as Switzerland, Canada, and Spain, it has had the contrary effect in developing countries. The political logics of federalism in the developing world will likely continue to stymie efforts to reform federal institutions along orthodox lines.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".