Fiscal Decentralization, Economic Freedom, and Political and Civil Liberties in the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the impact of fiscal decentralization on economic freedom and political and civil liberties in the Americas. Regarding the latter and with the full sample of countries, the findings suggest that decentralization initially worsens but eventually improves political and civil liberties, underlining the importance of fiscal decentralization as a driver for achieving basic liberties. When Canada and the US are excluded, the evidence shows that decentralization may eventually be a detriment for political and civil liberties. With respect to the impact of fiscal decentralization on economic freedom, decentralization first hinders but eventually increases freedom when all countries are included, emphasizing the point that a decentralization regime takes time to develop and function properly. When Canada and the US are excluded, decentralization initially increases but ultimately hampers freedom, demonstrating that if the decentralization regime does not address important matters like fiscal discipline, wealth inequality, and political accountability, economic freedom - like political and civil liberties - will also deteriorate.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".