MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234519971 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.7800

Unbundling Institutions: Using Economic Analysis to Understand the Importance of Institutions

2017· article· en· W4234519971 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christina Scriven

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnbundlingProperty rightsContext (archaeology)PoliticsEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Institutional economicsLaw and economicsPublic economicsBusinessPolitical scienceIndustrial organizationMicroeconomicsLawNeoclassical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large literature on institutions has developed that claims that institutions influence long-run growth and development; thus, it becomes critical to carefully examine what institutions influence which outcomes to better understand factors that influence long-run economic growth across countries. Douglass North terms institutions as the rules of the game and this paper will work to further examine these rules by looking at private property rights institutions, which are the rules and regulation protecting citizens against the power of the government and elites , and contracting institutions, which are the rules and regulations governing contracts between ordinary citizens. The paper Unbundling Institutions , published in the Journal of Political Economy by Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson in 2005, seeks to conceptualize the different factors within the institutional framework and provide some semblance of which of these factors provide the most relevant analysis. The paper finds that property rights institutions have a strong influence on long-run economic growth, investment, and financial development, while contracting institutions have a more limited impact on those same factors. My presentation will give a concise background on the development of the new institutional approach and explain the reasoning for the conceptual divide between property rights and contracting institutions. Using a two-stage least squares regression (2SLS) approach and the instrumental variable approach, the presentation will address issues of causality and correlation. Identifying the link to the policy arena will provide context as to why this area is of particular importance.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.123 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207