MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321770418 · doi:10.18235/0004754

The Causal Impact of Covid-19 Government-backed Loans on MSMEs Liquidity and Earnings

2023· report· en· W4321770418 on OpenAlexaff
Maikol Cerda, Paul Gertler, Sean Higgins, Ana María Montoya, Eric Parrado, Raimundo Undurraga

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBusiness, Innovation, and Economy
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanMarket liquidityBusinessGovernment (linguistics)EarningsShock (circulatory)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Financial systemFinanceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of government-guaranteed loans offered by the Chilean and Colombian governments. The public funds of these programs greatly expanded following the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and offered loans to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises to mitigate the negative impact of the shock. Through a collaboration with private banks, we launched two experiments which offered loans to a sub-set of the 10,072 Chilean and 3,079 Colombian small businesses that took part in our experiments. Most of these firms had previously applied for a loan during the pandemic--but prior to the RCTs--but were rejected by banks due to their risk analysis of the firms. With take-up rates of 27% and 29%, respectively, we find that Covid-19 loans had a significant positive impact on the total liquidity that treated MSMEs could access: total liquidity with the formal banking system increased by 15.7% (statistically significant at the 1% level). The results of our RCTs will inform Latin American governments concerning their strategies to support MSMEs via government-backed loan programs and will shape similar public policies in the future.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness, Innovation, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207