The politics of economic policy transformation : neoliberalism in the Anglo-American Democracies /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertatioa is a systematic and explicitly comparative analysis o f the widespread shift to neoliberal economic policies during the 1980s and 1990s.Contrary to the widelyaccepted theoretical proposition that parties with different ideologies produce differing public policy outcomes, governments o f both the right a n d the left in this period made significant moves towards policies emphasizing deregulation, privatization and the alleged superioriQf o f free markets.In an attem pt to explain this puzzling theoretical anomaly, this study examines the neoliberal policy phenomenon by analyzing the adoption o f fteer-market policies under four governments: two o f the right, in Britain and Canada, and two o f the left, in Australia and New Zealand.Based on extensive field research and a total o f over 110 indepth interviews with political elites in all four countries, it finds that while common influences and motivations led all four governments to move towards neoliberal policies, significant ideological differences between the governing parties produced important differences in the choice o f specific policies.Thus, as the Anglo-American cases reveal, partisanship "m atters''-but it often does so in complex, often overlooked, ways.By ^stem atically examining these economic policy revolutions, this dissertation aims to make a novel contribution to the study o f the politics o f econom ic policy-making-first, by reconsidering traditionally-held conceptions o f the link betw een political parties and ii economic policy, and second, by explicitly, systematically, and comparatively analyzing neoliberalism as a policy program employed in various ways in a varieQr o f economic and political contexts.m To Neovi, without whom none o f this would have happened.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".