International Comparisons of Trends in Economic Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This objective of this paper is to develop an index of economic well being for selected OECD countries for the period 1980 to 1996 and to compare trends in economic well being. We argue that the economic well being of a society depends on the level of average consumption flows, aggregate accumulation of productive stocks, inequality in the distribution of individual incomes and insecurity in the anticipation of future incomes. However, the weights attached to each component will vary, depending on the values of different observers. This paper argues that public debate would be improved if there is explicit consideration of the aspects of economic well-being obscured by average income trends and if the weights attached to these aspects were made visible and were open for discussion. The four components of economic well-being which are identified are: (1) effective per capita consumption flows, which includes consumption of marketed goods and services, and effective per capita flows of unmarketed goods and services and changes in leisure; (2) net societal accumulation of stocks of productive resources, including net accumulation of tangible capital and housing stocks, net accumulation of human capital and R investment, environmental costs, and net change in level of foreign indebtedness; (3) income distribution, as indicated by the Gini index of inequality, and depth and incidence of poverty; and (4) economic security from unemployment, ill health, single parent poverty and poverty in old age. Although estimates of the overall index and the subcomponents are presented for 1980- 1996 for 14 countries, the limited number of years for micro-data files from the Luxembourg Income Study make some estimates problematic - hence our major focus is trends in economic well-being in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Norway and Sweden. (Additional tables and charts in 242a.pdf.)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".