MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212897686 · doi:10.1093/wber/lhab024

The Intergenerational Effects of Economic Sanctions

2021· article· en· W4212897686 on OpenAlexaff
Safoura Moeeni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe World Bank Economic Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctionsEconomic sanctionsEconomicsDemographic economicsPopulationControl (management)PoliticsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPublic economicsPolitical scienceDemographySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While economic sanctions are successful in achieving political goals, they can hurt the civilian population. These negative effects could be even more detrimental and long lasting for future generations. This study estimates the effects of economic sanctions on children’s education by exploiting the United Nations sanctions imposed on Iran in 2006. Using the variation in the strength of sanctions across industries and difference-in-differences with synthetic control analyses, this study finds that the sanctions decreased children’s total years of schooling by 0.1 years and the probability of attending college by 4.8 percentage points. Moreover, households reduced education spending by 58 percent—particularly on school tuition. These effects are larger for children who were exposed to the sanctions for longer. The results imply that sanctions have a larger effect on the income of children than their parents. Therefore, ignoring the effects of sanctions on future generations significantly understates their total economic costs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe World Bank Economic ReviewSame topicEconomic Sanctions and International RelationsFrench-language works237,207