Does institutional quality resolve the Lucas Paradox?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lucas Paradox observes that capital flows predominantly to relatively rich countries, contradicting the neoclassical prediction that it should flow to poorer capital-scarce countries. In an influential study, Alfaro, Kalemli-Ozcan, and Volosovych (AKV) argue that cross-country variation in institutional quality can fully explain the Paradox, contending that if institutional quality is included in regression models explaining international capital inflows, a country’s level of economic development is no longer statistically significant. We replicate AKV’s results using their cross-sectional IFS capital flow data. Motivated by the importance of conducting inference in statistically adequate models, we focus on misspecification testing of alternative functional forms of their empirical model of capital flows. We show that their resolution of the Paradox relies on inference in a misspecified model. In models that do not fail basic misspecification tests, even though institutional quality is a significant determinant of capital inflows, a country’s level of economic development also remains a significant predictor. The same conclusions are reached using an extended dataset covering more recent IFS international capital flow data, first-differenced capital stock data and additional controls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".