International Trade and Local Labor Markets: Do Foreign and Domestic Shocks Affect Regions Differently?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the attention given to international trade in discussion of the economic struggles of many U.S. regions, it is unclear whether international trade shocks impact local economies more, or differently than shocks originating within the domestic economy. A challenge in making this discernment is separating trade shocks from common or domestic shocks. Therefore, using U.S. county-level data for 1990-2010, this study carefully constructs shocks to local economies, isolating those arising from international imports and exports to assess whether trade shocks have different effects from domestic shocks. In confirmatory analysis, we also employ a novel combination of IV and matching strategies. We examine a variety of indicators including employment growth, population growth, employment rates, wage rates and poverty rates. The results suggest that international trade shocks have some different effects than overall domestic shocks, though likely less than commonly perceived. We also find that domestic shocks dominate international trade shocks in explaining variation in regional labor market outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it