Neoliberal Economic Policy & Economic Inequality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing the government's role in economic planning, encouraging privatization of government entities, and spending less is the primary goal of neoliberalism. The mechanisms used by governments are reducing taxes, allowing coporations to open offices worldwide, and encouraging individuals to indepdently save & invest. Neoliberal economics notoriously is known for lowering taxes in all categories, thus creating a society where wealth accumlation is much simpler. Primarily the US and the UK invoked the largest reforms of neoliberalism in the 1980s-by cutting income tax on the wealthiest earners. Despite both nations raising their top tax brackets during the Second World War era-a shift in taxatation from the wealthiest earners towards the middle class was underway. Comparing the US and the UK experience to other countries: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Germany, will comparatively assess how economic inequality occurs during neoliberalism implementation. New Zealand cut income taxes by approximately 30%, but implemented tax cuts using a phased in approach. Canada and Australia chose to diversify their economices, particularly with the globalization of trade, but did not lower income taxes by a large margin. Germany is considered the founding country of neoliberalism, but their approach is different from the US and UK approach to tax cutting. Rather focusing on keeping workers incentivized to produce more and make Germany's economy stronger in the western hegemony was vital towards Germany's neoliberalism efforts. Neoliberal ideology and economic policy shapes questions surrounding the benefits of a less tax structure, but does this fall short of putting people ahead?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.007 |
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 teacher head, 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".