Poverty, Income Distribution and CGE Modeling: Does the Functional Form of Distribution Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this paper, we provide an overview of approaches used to model income distribution and poverty in CGE models. CGE models have started to use income distribution functional forms such as the lognormal, Pareto, beta distribution and Kernel non-parametric methods to apply FGT poverty indices. None of the authors of these papers have gone into much detail to justify the use of one method or functional form over the other, within the context of this type of work. Extensive literature exists on the choice of functional forms to estimate income distribution; however it has not been utilized in the CGE context. Given the fact that the desegregation of groups of households can be important in CGE analysis and the fact that the impact on income of policy simulations are often small in CGE models, we investigate the importance of the choice of the functional form used to estimate the income distribution of groups of households. We compare six functional forms with parametric estimation and on a non-parametric method. Results show that no single form is more appropriate in all cases or groups of households. The characteristics of samples and subgroups play an important role and the choice should be guided by the best fitting distribution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".