Zarządzanie współpracą instytucji państwa z diasporą. Przegląd teorii, analiza porównawcza wybranych państw
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present monograph examines the governance of state–diaspora relations, conceptualising it as a domain of public policy that requires new tools of analysis and design. The research focuses on institutional, legal, and organisational mechanisms through which diasporas are engaged in the political, economic, and cultural life of their countries of origin. The central aim is to demonstrate how different theories of public management, Weberian bureaucracy, governance, stakeholder theory, and the resource-based view can be applied to the evaluation and development of diaspora policies. The research problem is framed by the question of which models of cooperation are most effective under conditions of global mobility and the diversity of diasporas. Methodologically, the study employs institutional and legal analysis, comparative inquiry, and case studies. Selected states, including India, China, Israel, Canada, Ireland, the Philippines, Nigeria, the United States, and Armenia, are examined alongside Poland, which is assessed as a hybrid model that combines classical bureaucratic frameworks with mechanisms inspired by New Public Management. The findings indicate that no single theoretical model operates in isolation. Effective diaspora policies integrate bureaucratic procedures with network-based governance, stakeholder dialogue, and the mobilization of financial, human, and social capital. While countries with large and well-organised diasporas increasingly treat these communities as strategic resources, Poland still underutilises the developmental potential of Polonia despite reforms that introduced project-based funding and participatory elements. The key conclusion is that hybrid approaches to diaspora engagement – combining institutional stability with flexibility and innovation – represent the most promising model. Only through such integration can states maximise the strategic value of their diasporas as partners in development, culture, and diplomacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".