MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3124812855

Ghana Government Fiscal Deficits: How Small or How Large?

2008· article· en· W3124812855 on OpenAlexaff
Joe Amoako‐Tuffour

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsDeficit spendingFiscal policyTax revenueMonetary economicsGovernment debtGovernment revenueRevenueDepreciation (economics)DebtReal gross domestic productGross domestic productGovernment budgetFiscal deficitMacroeconomicsEconomic policyPublic financeFinanceCapital formationProfit (economics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring fiscal performance is not easy. Official budget measures are often flawed with measurement problems, so much so that they may provide a distorted picture of fiscal policy performance. This paper estimates several measures of Ghana Government fiscal balances. The results show that (i) the treatment of grants and divestiture (capital) receipts as regular revenues obscures the reality that primary expenditures needed for basic government functions have become unsustainable by conventional tax revenue since 1992; (ii) conventional budget balance understated the broad deficit on average by about 3% of GDP between 1983 and 1995 and by as much as 4% of GDP by another deficit measure; (iii) depreciation-induced interest cost on the external debt averaged 0.5% of GDP annually; (iv) deficit financing by inflation tax on the stock of domestic debt averaged 3.8% of GDP; and (v) the consolidated public sector deficit exceeded the central government operational deficit on average by 1.2% of GDP for the period 1983-95.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→