FernUniversität in Hagen/Carleton University Ottawa Comparing Democratic Legitimacy in Types of Multilevel Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper intends to contribute to a more differentiated comparative analysis of the democratic problem in multilevel governance. Usually, the debate in this field is focussed on policy-making in negotiations. As to this, we should distinguish between multilateral negotiations among central and lower-level governments (joint decision-making) and governance in a series of bilateral negotiations. What has so far been ignored in the debates on democracy and multilevel governance are modes of governance by competition. Again, at least two types should be distinguished: One is the standard model of fiscal federalism, which assumes that coordination is achieved through competition among governments for mobile tax payers. According to the other model, lower-level governments compete for best policies in a framework of standards or criteria for evaluation defined by central institutions or intergovernmental agreements. These types of multilevel governance are compared as to how they meet normative criteria of democratic legitimacy. Particular emphasis is put on the interplay between multilevel governance and intragovernmental patterns of democratic government. Empirical evidence is drawn from research on Germany, Canada and the EU, although the paper does not present a systematic comparative study. The aim is to broaden the perspective on multilevel governance by considering variations in modes of democracy and governance. The paper points out an analytical framework for further comparative research.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.004 |
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".