MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407401683 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n6p129

External Debt & Economic Growth: Case of Tunisia

2016· article· en· W2407401683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khemais Zaghdoudi, Mezni Mohamed, Nesrine Djebali

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtDebt service coverage ratioInternal debtExternal debtDebt-to-GDP ratioEconomicsDebt levels and flowsProfitability indexGoods and servicesMonetary economicsInvestment (military)FinanceEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this paper is to explore the influence of external debt (measured by two indicators that are outstanding debt and debt service in relation to exports of goods and services) on investment and economic growth in Tunisia during a period of 51 years which runs from 1961 to 2011, using vector autoregressive model (VAR). The empirical results show that, in the short term, outstanding debt and debt service in relation to exports of goods and services do not cause economic growth. In the long term, the external debt service is detrimental to Tunisian economy. In Tunisia, the problem is not a debt problem in itself, but the problem concerns the use of this debt. External debt is allocated to activities with both low added value and profitability. In the absence of a clear industrial policy, these activities are traditional activities that do not create wealth, correspond with competitive advantages of the country and employ the qualified workforce. Therefore, the unemployment rate of graduates increases regularly. Furthermore, a significant share of borrowed funds are intended to pay the salaries of the public sector, that have represented more than a third of the state budget in recent years. Then, external debt did not help the country to develop because those salaries went into consumption of some imported goods that are not produced in the home market.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207