MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312724927 · doi:10.55365/1923.x2022.20.53

The Relationship Between Public Spending and National Income: Empirical Evidence from Brazil from 1997 to 2019

2022· article· en· W4312724927 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathias Schneid Tessmann, Adolfo Sachsida, Anderson Possa, Sérgio Ricardo de Brito Gadelha

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsGranger causalityCausality (physics)Unitary statePublic expenditureMeasures of national income and outputPublic spendingEmpirical evidenceMacroeconomicsEconometricsPublic finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the existence of a causal relationship between public spending and national income, based on empirical evidence from Brazil, between 1997 and 2019. For this purpose, data on GDP and federal public expenditures were used. Initially, the ADF, Ng Perron and Perrontests were applied to measure the occurrence of unit roots, in I(0), no unitary roots were found, being stationary series. The Causality Test of Granger was then carried out to examine the occurrence of a causal relationship between expenditure and GDP, establishing the temporal precedence between the variables. It was concluded that there is a causal relationship between federal public expenditures and GDP. Thus, depending on the meaning, positive or negative, of this causal link, the approaches that deal with the dynamics of public spending and its causal link with income can be proven by Wagner's Law, Keynesian hypotheses and non-Keynesian hypotheses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.143 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207