Political Economy and Public Policy of Marginalization: Alternative Development, Multilevel Planning and Disadvantaged Communities in Slovenia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are alternative models relevant in the context of revitalization of disadvantaged communities without the visible role of the state in building strategies? In some reasonable conditions, the state has to carry out specific tasks which would guarantee marginalized communities to become a relevant partner in creating and establishing participatory approaches. In many developed countries the inclusion schema is usually established but power relations are not reconstructed properly in a sense of a more fair cooperation between the state and disadvantaged communities. The main goal of the present paper is to problematise policies according to marginalized communities in Slovenia and Canada and to show which principles from Canadian socio-economic praxis are revenant for Slovenian reality.1 PROLOGUEWe are aware that simple causal model of alternative is too rigid when trying to picture a complex reality of strategies. Contemporary approaches to in marginalized communities are multidisciplinar/ in their nature and planned as multilevel strategies of development. Regarding theoretical approaches, scholars adapt theories, for example, from international political economy to theories of micro business to explain various themes concerning in disadvantaged communities. Due to this reason we will use the original Sundaram's2 approach of multilevel planning and adapt it to reality in Slovenia and Canada. The main issue concerning multilevel planning is to show different possible approaches regarding alternative development: topdown planning, planning from bellow and planning from within. For Sundaram,3 the issue of decentralization is of fundamental importance in relation to multilevel planning.Our focus is to warn that problem of poverty is of acute nature also in developed countries as they are Slovenia and Canada. The latter has far more developed social economy approaches which will be an important issue in this paper. Two marginalized groups are included in comparison: Aboriginal peoples of Canada and Roma community in Slovenia. Even they do not share a lot of common characteristics, the problem of continuing marginalization is evident in both cases.We will try to explain and investigate the marginalization phenomenon and possible solutions in two ways: through a political economy approach and public policy analysis. More concretely, we are interested how policy changes and participation of individuals (living in disadvantaged communities) in policies create opportunities for them. What is more, research interest is also given to the role of the state in policies and what is probably missing in defining its role in preventing marginalization.Finally, two different approaches are included in comparison: Community Economic Development approach widely used in Canada and the Government of Slovenia's National Program of Measures concerning Roma Communities the Period 2010-2015 as a core strategy for future of Roma in Slovenia. In fact, the first one is the alternative model of economic in communities (often called the initiative) which is partially independent from the state. The second example is a governmental strategy designed as top-down model of development.2 MULTILEVEL PLANNING: BEYOND THE TWO WAY DEVELOPMENTConventional distinction which assumes and determines the role of the state in planning activities presupposes top-down4 and bottom up5 approaches as the most reliable. In some sense, this linear mode of thinking is maybe too simplistic for understanding a chaotic reality in the process of activities. Sundaram6 besides the conventional view offers a third possibility which he calls a development from within saying that this is a model of with a capillary effect. …
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".