O AUMENTO DA LUCRATIVIDADE EXPANDE A ACUMULAÇÃO DE CAPITAL? UMA ANÁLISE DE CAUSALIDADE DE GRANGER PARA PAÍSES DA OCDE // DOES INCREASING PROFITABILITY RISE CAPITAL ACCUMULATION? A GRANGER CAUSALITY ANALYSIS ON OECD COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMO: O objetivo deste trabalho e testar a hipotese classico-marxiana de ligacao causal entre a taxa de lucro e a taxa de acumulacao de capital para um conjunto de 20 paises da OCDE. A metodologia utilizada baseia-se no procedimento proposto por Toda e Yamamoto (1995) para testar a hipotese de nao causalidade de Granger. A especificacao de teste empregada, derivada a partir da equacao de Cambridge, envolve tres variaveis: a taxa de lucro, a taxa de acumulacao e a taxa de investimento. A consideracao da variavel investimento permite comparacoes entre as tradicoes classico-marxiana e pos-keynesianas. Os resultados para a Australia, a Dinamarca, os EUA, a Finlândia e a Irlanda sao consistentes com a concepcao classico-marxiana. Por outro lado, os resultados para o Canada, a Coreia do Sul, a Grecia e a Suecia sao parcialmente consistentes com a tradicao pos-keynesiana. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to test the classical-Marxian hypothesis of causal linkages between profit rate and the accumulation of capital for a dataset of 20 OECD countries. The procedure proposed by Toda and Yamamoto (1995) to test for the Granger non-causality hypotheses is employed in the statistical procedure. The test specification, derived from the Cambridge equation, involves three variables: profit rate, accumulation of capital and investment rate. The consideration of the investment rate allows a comparison between the classical-Marxian and the post-Keynesian traditions. For the cases of Australia, Denmark, USA, Finland, and Ireland, the results provide empirical support for the classical-Marxian conception. On the other hand, in the cases of Canada, South Korea, Greece, and Sweden, the results support the post-Keynesian tradition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".