MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014786447 · doi:10.32721/ctj.2020.68.1.zeli

The Evaluation of Job Tax Incentives: An Analysis of a Regional Tax

2020· article· en· W3014786447 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandro Zeli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedIncentiveBeneficiaryTax incentiveOrder (exchange)Tax deductionLabour economicsBusinessPublic economicsTax creditEconomicsTax policyTax reformDemographic economicsState income taxGross incomeEconomic growthFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An employment tax deduction is frequently used as a public policy tool to stimulate economic growth and recovery. Analysis of the impact of such provisions adopted in the recent past may shed light on the effects of current tax policies. This article aims to estimate the effects of a tax deduction for Italy's <i>imposta regionale sulle attivit‡ produttive</i> (regional tax on productive activities), or IRAP, granted to firms that increased their personnel between 2005 and 2007. The main objectives of the analysis are to assess the increase in, and the permanence of, new employment; to detect any changes in the employment structure of beneficiary firms; and to evaluate the effectiveness of different deduction amounts granted to firms in disadvantaged regions in order to reduce the employment gap. The results of the analysis using a difference-in-difference model indicate that firms enjoying IRAP incentives registered more significant and more enduring changes in the selected indicators as compared with firms not taking the deduction, thus verifying the effectiveness of the provision. The adopted measure provided for larger deductions for disadvantaged regions of southern Italy, but the results do not register a larger increase in employment in those regions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.160 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienneSame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207