MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220717797 · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2022.104645

Optimal tax policy and endogenous growth through innovation

2022· article· en· W4220717797 on OpenAlex
Till Gross, Paul Klein

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsEndogenous growth theoryRomerExternalityTax policyOptimal taxWelfareMicroeconomicsCapital (architecture)Growth modelProduction (economics)Market powerTax rateDeadweight lossHuman capitalMonetary economicsTax reformPublic economicsMonopolyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate optimal tax policy in a Romer-style endogenous growth model. We derive formulas for the optimal tax rates on capital, labour, and innovation on a balanced growth path. We compute the balanced growth path and the transition to it with optimal policy for a range of parameter values. We find that capital should be taxed in the short run, but be paid its marginal product in the long run. The returns to innovation and production labour, on the other hand, should always be lower than their marginal products. Whether the resulting taxes on innovative activity should be positive or negative depends on (a) the extent of government spending needs, (b) the importance of innovation externalities and (c) the market power of patent holders. The welfare gains from optimal policy are much larger than in a comparable exogenous growth model.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.150 · 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