MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101891660 · doi:10.1177/0020715215577869

Globalization and income inequality: How public sector spending moderates this relationship in affluent countries

2015· article· en· W2101891660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher Kollmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationInequalityEconomicsEconomic inequalityPanel dataArgument (complex analysis)Demographic economicsPublic sectorAssertionDevelopment economicsEconometricsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study revisits the question of whether global market integration increases net income inequality in affluent countries. Prior research treats the relationship between globalization and income inequality as invariant across different national contexts. Conversely, the author argues that this relationship is best understood as a moderated causal effect, in which the redistributive influences of public sector spending diminish and eventually negate globalization’s otherwise positive effect on income inequality. This argument implies that the distributional consequences of globalization vary cross-nationally due to substantial differences in public sector spending found among affluent countries. Using unbalanced panel data from 16 Western countries observed between 1970 and 2010, the author tests this assertion with panel regression techniques. The results provide qualified support for the hypothesized conditional relationship, with interaction terms between public sector spending and Southern imports being statistically significant across different model specifications and different estimating strategies.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207