Taxation, Inequality and Fiscal Contracting in the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2000, Latin America has become less unequal, with lower levels of poverty, and likely greater economic mobility. Over a longer time period, the story in the United States is much different. The United States has become more unequal, with relatively high poverty levels, and likely less economic mobility. While these changes largely result from broader economic and political factors, government fiscal policies play some role in changing market outcomes. This Article examines how changes in levels of inequality may influence taxing and spending policies. It suggests that in both parts of the Americas changing economic and political realities may contribute to a changing 'fiscal contract.' One contributing factor is the economic circumstances of the middle class. In Latin America, improvements in the economic status of the middle class may call for different tax and spending policies. In the United States, the increased economic vulnerability of the middle class and the perceived decline in economic mobility may drive change. In both regions, the extent and nature of change may depend largely on the extent to which the middle class come to think that they may be better served with higher (or lower) taxes (on them, and on the wealthy) and more (or less) robust social spending programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".