Is it sound poilcy or fast policy? Practitioner’s perspectives on the role of place branding local economic development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to neoliberal policies and globalization pressures over the past three decades, urban governments in advanced economies have, with near-unanimity, adopted place branding as an approach to foster local economic growth. Framed as an outcome of multilevel neoliberal policymaking and local entrepreneurial governance, place branding has been adopted by urban places at all scales and geographic contexts with little regard for its efficacy. It is unclear, however, whether place branding represents a substantive approach, or is merely an emerging example of a neoliberal scripting. In many regards, the debate surrounding place branding is similar to the discourse on the Creative Class a decade ago. Consequently, uncertainty exists regarding whether place branding reflects practical and responsible urban governance or a superficial, fast policy with limited potential to foster local development. To date, little is known about how practitioners perceive place branding as a policy tool in the context of economic development. This study examines the perceptions of economic development practitioners regarding how place branding is being developed and implemented as a policy tool. The analysis is based on in-depth interviews with economic development practitioners (n = 25) from a wide range of municipalities in Ontario. Findings of this study indicate that while opportunity exists for place branding to represent in-depth and extensive local development policy, it is more generally an urban development script for creating a sense of place and fostering local economic development. Additionally, the majority of place branding policy represents superficial policy, emphasizing hegemonic approaches. Place branding can therefore be explained as an example of fast policy.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".