Intergovernmental financial relations as a paradigm of hyper-executive federalism: insights from the case of equalization mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pervasive role of the executive in the legislative function finds an unprecedented amplification in the context of federal systems, hence the concept of “executive federalism”, with financial relations and, among these, equalization mechanisms representing an emblematic forerunner of this phenomenon. The decision to isolate this specific segment of federalism studies serves a twofold purpose. First, it allows us to investigate the role that remains to the elective assemblies in elaborating decisions in technical and complex areas like public finance. Second, it aims to analyze an area that is essential to the political autonomy of territorial authorities, thus allowing us to understand how these processes have developed and their effects on the institutional level. To test this preliminary assumption, the study investigates decision-making procedures on equalization mechanisms from a comparative and constitutional law perspective, with the ultimate aim to verify the magnitude of the executive drift in the different paradigms in action. Accordingly, the different federal systems of interest have been identified to portray the existing variety of ‘architectural’ solutions, ie., including in the spectrum of analysis the different paradigms that can be detected in federal systems around the globe. Against this line, the following cases will be investigated: Australia as the prototype of tax-revenue sharing on a ‘technical base’ (Commonwealth Grants Commission); Canada representing, in financial-related matters, the paradigm of federal-provincial diplomacy with little, if any, legal entrenchment; Germany as the prototype of tax-revenue sharing on a ‘legislative-assembly base’ (Bundestag+Bundesrat); and, finally, Spain with the quasi-constitutional institutionalization of the CPFF as a forum for intergovernmental financial relations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".