Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three broad theoretical approaches characterize the history of development economics: state-led growth, which dominated from the 1930s until roughly 1980; liberalization theory (the ‘Washington Consensus’), which dominated in the 1980s; and institutionalism, which dominated subsequently. After 2000, development scholars increasingly focused on the legal institutions that support markets: property, contracts, and business law. This essay focuses on legal institutions that support economic innovation, which causes sustained growth. Developing countries mostly innovate by discovering new markets and adapting organizations, which is risky. A risky venture that unites capital and new ideas poses a problem of trust: the investor must trust the innovator not to steal his money, and the innovator must trust the investor not to steal his ideas. If institutions supply the means for entrepreneurs to solve the double trust dilemma, the economy strides ahead through innovation. Conversely, if institutions fail to supply the means for entrepreneurs to solve the double trust dilemma, the economy hobbles along without improvement. The origin of a nation's laws – whether common or civil law – is not so important as the ability to adapt law to business innovations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".