Local Economic Development in Latin America: A Study of the Role of the UNDP-Supported LEDAs in Promoting Sustainable Local Economic and Social Development In Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an evaluation of the Local Economic Development Agency (LEDA) model and network operating in Latin America with UNDP support. Originating in the 1980s as one of the supposedly transforming institutions linked to the neoliberal revolution, the commercialised LEDA model was one of the main forms of local economic development support that was to take the place of all state-coordinated and financed local economic development capacity that transgressed neoliberal rules dictating a 'minimal state' and 'full cost recovery' of all organisations. In spite of very little success in the developed countries with the commercialised LEDA model, especially in the UK where the commercialised LEDA model was essentially born in the early years of the Thatcher government, the international development community nevertheless willingly supported its transfer over to developing countries. This evaluation shows that the LEDA model has quite spectacularly failed in developing countries, especially in Latin America, though UNDP has most often presented it as being a succesful model of local development. The field and secondary data clerly shows that most LEDAs in Latin America have either (a) closed down, (b) converted over to become private consultancy bodies and so do not undertake any real development activity, or else (c) survive on a day-to-day basis through small chunks of funding for one-off disparate projects. However, a few LEDAs have been converted back into local government-coordinated and funded bodies, and it is these 'quasi-LEDAs' that have proved to be the most successful. On the basis of this ongoing failure, the rationale behind UNDP’s past and continuing support for the LEDA model is therefore called into serious question. The evaluation essentially confirms the famous observation of Douglass North, and that of Marx a century earlier, that ‘bad’ institutions are often allowed to survive, and may even be encouraged to flourish, simply because it is in the interests of the powerful for this to happen.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".