MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886270966

India’s 1970s-1990s Step-wise Growth Acceleration: Causes and Impacts

2018· article· en· W2886270966 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsCasualPovertyLiberalizationDevelopment economicsWageInvestment (military)AgricultureIndependence (probability theory)Labour economicsEconomic growthGeographyMarket economyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To lower poverty and to raise living standards, many developing countries need to attain and maintain fast, pro-poor growth. Arguably the most important acceleration to occur over the last half-century has been India’s. The country had suffered both low average income and slow growth over most of its first three post-Independence decades. Unlike the short and clear-cut periods of “take-off†experienced by many countries, India’s appears to have been a two or three step process beginning in the 1970s and ending with the upward ratcheting of the early 1990s. A striking feature was the small increase in the (constant price) investment rate, implying that the dominant proximate cause of acceleration was increasing efficiency in the use of resources. Possible factors at work include the shift away from the Mahalinobis model, the liberalization and improvement in business atmosphere, the Green Revolution, and the creation of many new bank branches which raised national savings. Inequality appears to have changed little during the accelerations of the late 1970s and 1980s but it rose significantly during that of the 1990s. Even then, however, the income growth of the poorer groups, including agricultural wage earners and casual non-agricultural workers, was strong.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207