Health Care Expenditure and GDP in Oil Exporting Countries: Evidence From OPEC Data, 1995-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a large body of literature examining income in relation to health expenditures. The share of expenditures in health sector from GDP in developed countries is often larger than in non-developed countries, suggesting that as the level of economic growth increases, health spending increase, too. OBJECTIVES: This paper estimates long-run relationships between health expenditures and GDP based on panel data of a sample of 12 countries of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), using data for the period 1995-2012. PATIENTS & METHODS: We use panel data unit root tests, cointegration analysis and ECM model to find long-run and short-run relation. This study examines whether health is a luxury or a necessity for OPEC countries within a unit root and cointegration framework. RESULTS: Panel data analysis indicates that health expenditures and GDP are co-integrated and have Engle and Granger causality. In addition, in oil countries that have oil export income, the share of government expenditures in the health sector is often greater than in private health expenditures similar developed countries. CONCLUSIONS: The findings verify that health care is not a luxury good and income has a robust relationship to health expenditures in OPEC countries.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".