Measuring Poverty and Inequality in a Computable General Equilibrium Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to evaluate the relevance of different types of macroeconomic general equilibrium modelling for measuring the impact of economic policy shocks on the incidence of poverty and on the distribution of income. In the literature three approaches are identified. The first is based on a traditional form of the CGEM which specifies a large number of households. In this case, we can only observe inter group income inequalities. The next uses survey data to estimate the distribution function and average variations by group, which allows one to estimate the evolution of poverty. The third approach, which we present in detail, includes individual data directly in the general equilibrium model according to the principles of micro simulations. This treatment provides a more reliable picture of income distribution but is also more complex. Given this, we develop, within a co-ordinated statistical framework representing an archetypal economy, the three types of model described above. More precisely, this exercise allows us to break down the contribution of average income variations, of the poverty line, and of income distribution in the evolution of the main poverty indicators. The results obtained show the importance of intra group information and therefore the relevance of micro simulation exercises.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".