MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994196749 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v10n3p226

Growth Impacts of Income Inequality: Empirical Evidence From Nigeria

2019· article· en· W2994196749 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ademola Obafemi Young

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInequalityEconomic inequalityExtant taxonNexus (standard)Context (archaeology)Development economicsEmpirical evidencePanel dataDeveloping countryDemographic economicsIncome distributionEconomic growthEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate on whether income inequality promotes, restricts, or is independent of economic growth has been widely studied and discussed in development economics discourse. However, a careful reading of this extensive extant and burgeoning literature suggests that, other than the ambivalent nature and the fact that the bulk of these studies relied heavily on cross-section/-country/panel econometric analysis, empirical studies examining the nexus in the context of less developed economies, particularly, African countries, has received less attention, as most of the extant studies predominantly focused on developed economies. This current study, thus, attempts to examine the impact of inequality on growth in Nigeria spanning between the period 1970 and 2018. It also examined the theoretical predictions of some of the distinct transmission channels through which inequality impacts growth. Time series econometrics were applied. The results obtained consistently revealed that inequality hurts long-run growth in Nigeria. Also, the results obtained revealed that inequality in income increases relative redistribution and fertility, but lessens investment, gross enrollment ratio, and property rights protection in Nigeria, which may in turn impede growth.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.151 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207