MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414088498 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v17n10p45

Impacts of Dynamic Fiscal Multipliers on Brazilian Economic Growth: A Note on NARDL

2025· article· en· W4414088498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francisco J. S. Rocha, Hernane Borges de Barros Pereira, Átila Amaral Brilhante

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributed lagFiscal policyGovernment spendingGovernment (linguistics)Business cycleGovernment expenditureReal gross domestic product

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzing fiscal multipliers reveals that the impacts of government spending on the economy aren’t always symmetrical; that is, an increase in spending can have a different effect than a reduction of the same magnitude. Evidence of asymmetries in the positive and negative effects of expenditures is crucial for effective fiscal policy formulation. The study analyzed the asymmetric effects of dynamic fiscal multipliers, government revenues, and expenditures on the growth of the Brazilian economy from 2003 to 2019. A Nonlinear Autoregressive Distributed Lag (NARDL) model was used, yielding the following results. A decrease in government expenditures produced an uncommon outcome. Specifically, a reduction in expenditures led to a decrease in GDP growth until the 4th quarter. After this point, GDP began to grow, moving into positive territory and remaining there until reaching its long-run negative limit in the 16th semester. In other words, a reduction in expenditures resulted in an improvement in the expectations of economic agents (producers and consumers) and in the country’s macroeconomic situation. Conversely, a reduction in revenues, through a decrease in taxes, led to GDP growth until the twelfth quarter, peaking in the fourth quarter. It can be assumed that this growth was caused by increases in households’ disposable income, enabling greater consumption, and by increased financial resources allocated to business investments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→