MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

General Equilibrium Approach for Poverty Analysis: With an Application to Cameroon

2005· article· en· W2043095966 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Decaluwé, Luc Savard, Erik Thorbecke

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Development Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyEconomicsComputable general equilibriumTariffDistribution (mathematics)Free tradeIncome distributionGeneral equilibrium theoryHousehold incomeLiberalizationDevelopment economicsDemographic economicsInequalityInternational economicsMacroeconomicsGeographyEconomic growthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In this paper we use a computable general equilibrium model to study the impact of a trade shock and a tariff reform on household poverty for an archetype developing country. Unlike other studies, we present the income distribution of each household group as a Beta statistical distribution. In contrast to other studies, this paper presents the poverty lines as being endogenous. With this specification, the poverty line will change following a variation in relative prices. With the new distributions and poverty line, the poverty levels of the base year are compared with the ex-post values. Foster, Greer and Thorbecke's (1984) poverty measures are used. We work with the Cameroon household survey data of 1995–96. We consider two scenarios. The first is a 30 percent fall in the world price of the country's export crop and the second is a reduction of 50 percent in the country's import tariffs. For the first simulation, results indicate a drop in all household incomes and a decrease in the poverty line. Unilateral trade liberalization also has negative consequences on all household incomes. As in the first simulation, the poverty line decreases with a unilateral trade liberalization. In the trade liberalization simulation, the poverty line effect counters the income effect in most cases analyzed. In the other simulation, the poverty line effect attenuates the decrease in the poverty measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Development ReviewSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207