MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403319103 · doi:10.1093/isq/sqae129

Preferential Trade Agreements and Leaders’ Business Experience

2024· article· en· W4403319103 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicola Nones

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Studies Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Test (biology)Causality (physics)Construct (python library)Instrumental variableEconomicsSign (mathematics)Econometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many theories attempt to explain the determinants of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their design. Existing accounts, however, focus almost exclusively on structural or domestic factors and ignore individual leaders. In this paper, I develop and test novel theoretical claims regarding executive leaders’ prior career in business and their trade cooperation policy once in office. I construct a new dataset on the heads of the executive’s business managerial experience and test my main claims in a time-series-cross-sectional setting covering 185 countries from 1948 to 2009. To establish causality, I rely on an instrumental variable strategy and leverage exogenous transitions due to sudden deaths or terminal illness in office. The results show that businesspersons-turned-politicians are more likely to enter PTAs and are more likely to sign deeper PTAs. The relationship is further investigated in an illustrative case study of the 1988—Canada trade deal. The substantive effect of business experience is comparable to that of established factors in the literature, such as regime type, and is robust to numerous tests, specifications, subsamples, and measurements of business experience.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Studies QuarterlySame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207