MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000120403 · doi:10.1111/ecpo.12058

Trade Policy in Lobbying Equilibrium: With Non‐Traded and Traded Final Goods and Intermediate Inputs

2015· article· en· W2000120403 on OpenAlex
Ram C. Acharya

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomics and Politics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpstream (networking)Downstream (manufacturing)EconomicsConsumption (sociology)Production (economics)International economicsInternational tradeMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper derives trade policies endogenously for final consumption and intermediate input industries in the presence of a non‐traded sector. Contrary to what the existing literature suggests, results show that there is no definite relation between lobbying status and the direction of trade policy of an industry. Trade protection of an industry depends on how its consumption (horizontal) and production (vertical) linkages with other industries reinforce or cancel out its lobbying efforts. To cite a few results, (i) an organized industry may face trade tax, whereas an unorganized one may obtain protection; (ii) an organized downstream industry may not be able to impose trade tax to an unorganized upstream industry, (iii) an organized upstream industry may not hurt unorganized downstream industry, (iv) lobby for non‐traded industry alone can influence trade policies, and (v) lobby for traded industry affects the size of the non‐traded sector in the economy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it