Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent empirical evidence has suggested a positive association between various measures of investor protection and financial markets development, and between financial markets development and economic growth. We introduce investor protection in a simple extension of the two-period overlapping generations model of capital accumulation and we develop predictions for the effects of investor protection on economic growth. A first result is that investor protection is positively related to risk-sharing. As it is standard in models of investment with risk-averse agents, better protection (better risk sharing) results in a larger demand for capital. This is the demand effect. A second effect, which we call supply effect, derives from imposing general equilibrium restrictions. For a given aggregate capital stock, better protection (i.e. a higher demand schedule) implies a higher interest rate. By aggregate resource constraint, this translates into lower income for the entrepreneurs (the younger cohort). As a result, current savings and the supply of capital in the following period decrease. It turns out that the strength of the supply effect is greater, the tighter the restrictions on capital flows. Therefore our model predicts that the positive effect of investor protection on growth is stronger for countries with less restrictions. We find that the data provides some support for this prediction.
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".