What Really Drives Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from the Lasso Regularization and Inferential Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The question of what really drives economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been debated for many decades now. However, there is still a lack of clarity on the variables crucial for driving growth as prior contributions have been executed at the backdrop of preferential selection of covariates in the midst of several potential drivers of economic growth. The main challenge with such contributions is that even tenuous variables may be deemed influential under some model specifications and assumptions. To address this and inform policy appropriately, we train algorithms for four machine learning regularization techniques— the Standard lasso , the Adaptive lasso , the minimum Schwarz Bayesian information criterion lasso , and the ElasticNet— to study patterns in a dataset containing 113 covariates and identify the key variables affecting growth in SSA. We find that only 7 covariates are key for driving growth in SSA. The estimates of these variables are provided by running the lasso inferential techniques of double-selection linear regression , partialing-out lasso linear regression , and partialing-out lasso instrumental variable regression . Policy recommendations are also provided in line with the AfCFTA and the green growth agenda of the region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".