STRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS OF FISCAL EQUALIZATION SYSTEMS. A Comparative Analysis of Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette thèse de doctorat analyse les dynamiques des systèmes de péréquation financière. Les systèmes de péréquation financière sont des institutions qui sont crées pour prévenir des conflits qui ont émergé à cause de l'hétérogénéité économique présente dans des pays fédéraux. Ces conflits peuvent avoir un impact sérieux et même mener à la violence ou à la sécession. Cette recherche s'avère donc cruciale pour comprendre ces conflits et pour connaître les effets que les systèmes de péréquation financière peuvent avoir dans la prévention et la résolution des conflits. Cette contribution tente de pallier le manque de recherche systématique sur les systèmes de péréquation financière. Ce thème est largement absent en science politique malgré l'importance des sujets en science politique comme la solidarité, l'union fédérale et la construction d'une nation. De plus, cette dissertation n'analyse pas uniquement les effets statiques, mais aussi les conditions nécessaires au succès de réformes des systèmes de péréquation financière dans la réduction de conflit. Ces dynamiques sont analysées pour six études de cas dans un espace de temps qui commence depuis la fondation de ces six fédérations jusqu'à aujourd'hui. Cela fournit donc une analyse qualitative comparative sur les systèmes de péréquation financière en profondeur qui est sans précédant. Pour cette analyse comparative, un nouveau cadre théorique a été conçu. Cela consiste notamment en une nouvelle typologie des systèmes de péréquation financière mais aussi en une typologie sur des différents types de conflits. Cette recherche compte fournir de base en science politique pour résoudre ou même prévenir des conflits dans l'avenir. -- This doctoral dissertation analyzes dynamics of fiscal equalization systems. Fiscal equalization systems are institutions that are created to prevent conflicts that emerge due to economic heterogeneity in fédéral countries. These conflicts can have a serious impact and lead to violence or secession. This research is thus crucial to understand these conflicts and to learn what effect fiscal equalization systems have in preventing or even fostering such conflicts. This contribution is important as systematic research on fiscal equalization systems is largely absent in political science, even though fundamental political issues are at stake such as solidarity, fédéral union, or nation-building. Moreover, this dissertation looks not only into static effects, but also into the conditions that make reforms of financial equalization systems successful in reducing conflicts. These dynamics are analyzed for six case studies in a time-frame starting from the foundation of these six fédérations until today. It provides thus an unprecedented in-depth qualitative comparative analysis of fiscal equalization systems. For the comparative analysis of these case studies, a new theoretical framework has been established. It notably consists of a new typology of fiscal equalization systems, but also of différent conflict types. This research intends to incite the spark in political science in order to resolve or even prevent these conflicts in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".