MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W86118727

The political representation of the poor

2008· dissertation· en· W86118727 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep Blue (University of Michigan) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPoliticsRepresentation (politics)Political sciencePolitical economyLaw and economicsSociologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do electoral rules affect the poor? Under what conditions are legislators likely to be more or less responsive to the poor? This research departs from current explanations of cross-national differences in social policy by recognizing that antipoverty measures are well-suited for manipulation by re-election-motivated legislators: Antipoverty measures are highly targeted policies that are readily perceived by the beneficiaries and can be directly attributed to incumbent legislators. In combination with the geographic distribution of income groups, electoral rules determine the electoral power of low-income citizens, and structure legislators’ incentives to be responsive to this constituency. The generosity of antipoverty measures will reflect the share of legislators that rely on low-income citizens’ electoral support -- an intuition that is developed in a series of formal-analytic examples that demonstrate the important modifying effect of electoral geography on the more general relationship between electoral rules and social policy. Support for this election-motivated account of antipoverty policy is presented two forms: First, I take full advantage of Italy’s electoral reform and the dramatic change in Germany’s electoral geography following re-unification to demonstrate that improvements in the electoral power of the poor are followed by increases in the effectiveness of antipoverty measures; Chapter 4 reports the results of this analysis. Second, in a broadly comparative analysis, Chapter 5 establishes the general – positive – relationship between the electoral power of a low-income voting bloc (i.e., the number of seats elected by low-income citizens, if they all turn out to vote, and all vote for the same party), and levels of targeted poverty relief. Both of these analysis use a new measure of poverty responsiveness, developed in Chapter 3, as their dependent variable. The poverty relief ratio, R, assesses the effectiveness of antipoverty transfers from the perspective of low-income citizens. That cross-national and over-time differences in levels of poverty relief reflect variation in legislators’ electoral incentives to be responsive to low-income citizens is both surprising and a cause for concern: The electoral institutions of contemporary democratic societies may undermine opportunities for these societies to fulfill their obligations to democratic equality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it