The China Growth Miracle: The Role of the Formal and the Informal Institutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines why C hina, in spite of its ordinary institutions, can grow so rapidly and for so long. Since each region in China has different quality of institutions and growth rates, we look into provincial and city data for this investigation. The variables formal and informal institutions are added into the conventional cross‐section growth equation. The quality of the formal (informal) institution is taken from an opinion survey on the effectiveness of city governance conducted by the W orld B ank in 2006 (can be measured by the share of township‐and‐village enterprise in each province during 1978–2002 or by the trust index from surveys). We conclude that it is the informal institution that drives the rapid growth in China. Further investigation, using panel data and A rellano‐ B ond system GMM estimator, which controls for the missing fixed effect in cross‐provincial regressions and provides useful instrument, confirms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it