Is the Resource Curse Thesis Affect Only Least Developed Countries? Examples from Resource-Rich Developed Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether the Dutch Disease thesis, which is one of the best-known economic explanations on this subject, which puts forward the thesis that countries rich in natural resources can have negative effects on long-term economic growth, directly or indirectly, depending on the way they are used, is valid or not. tried to be demonstrated. The Dutch disease thesis is one of the main explanations for resource misfortune, emphasizing the negative effects of resource abundance on the national economy in countries with rich resource endowments and pointing to a paradox that economic conditions will be better in countries that do not have relatively little (or scarce) natural resources. is happening. Therefore, in our study, it is aimed to investigate whether resource richness causes an economic recession or not, especially for developed countries by considering indirect transmission channels. In this context, 11 developed countries such as Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Denmark, between 1990 and 2019, are based on the experiences of developed countries, which are especially rich in different sources of Dutch Disease syndrome. The country has been researched with static and dynamic panel analysis methods. As a result of the estimation, findings were found that the Dutch Disease was partially valid in terms of developed country samples throughout the sample period considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".