Trade, fiscal transfers, diversity and the resource curse : evidence from Canada and the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines various issues related to intranational and international trade, fiscal decentralization, trade openness, economic diversity, resource curse and economic growth – all within a Canada-US sub-national framework. Chapter 1 provides the motivation for the study and sets the stage for the various empirical-based policy trade-offs and insights arrived at in the subsequent chapters. In chapter 2, we examine the extent to which trade costs, modeled by distance and contiguity, influence the magnitude and direction of both east-west and north-south trade in Canada and the US .We provide an alternative framework which pays special attention to estimation issues related to unobserved heterogeneity, log-linearization in the presence of heteroscedasticity, and logarithmic transformation of zero bilateral trade flows. In all, this thesis provides updated results and garners further evidence in support of the home bias argument of McCallum (1995) and Obstfeld and Rogoff (2000b). Equally, our results uphold the Linder-hypothesis, but refute the Heckscher-Ohlin factor endowment proposition. Chapter 3 focuses on the relative importance of fiscal redistribution and trade openness in the economic growth analysis of Canada and the US. Using a dynamic panel of Canada-US data, we estimate the importance of redistributive flows based on personal income after federal taxes and transfers, and pretax personal income. We conclude that there is a clear incidence of “immiserising growth”. The coefficient of the interaction variable gives no evidence of fiscal transfer-induced growth across all four major estimators. Chapter 4 explores the diversity-resource-growth nexus. The first major conclusion is that the diversity measures employed are arbitrary because both the absolute and relative specialization measures, on which they are based, are arbitrary. We find evidence for a positive direct relationship for the diversity-growth nexus. Due to statistically insignificant coefficients, the GMM framework does not provide us with predictive power to test the resource curse proposition. However, through the fixed effects technique, we provide evidence for the role of economic diversity as a transmission channel of the resource curse.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".