〈Articles〉Institutional Change of Equalization Payments to Canadian Provinces and Revenue Raising Performance from 2004-05 to 2011-12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[概要] 「補完的」制度論アプローチは第1に, 連邦・州間財政調整法の条項に着目することによって, 2007年度平衡交付金の改革(新定式配分07)を「制度変化」として確認できるだけでなく, その分析で沖合相殺交付金を対象範囲に加えることを要請する。第2に, 33税目を5税目にする改定は, 各州各税目のパネルデータ分析によって, 5税目への統合であることが確かめられた。第3に, 人口の3割を占めるオンタリオは交付州になったが, サスカチュアンとNL州は, それぞれ天然資源50％算入と沖合相殺交付金で, 2007年度から収入を伸ばし, 08年度に不交付州になった。改革がそれらの州に与えた収入確保のインセンティブ効果は, 2年タイムラグで3年加重平均の1人当たり財政力の順位を変える「政策誘導効果」に反映された。また, 「新定式配分09」では, 交付州になったオンタリオが将来, 不交付州になっても, 自動的に対応できる制度の頑健性も確保された。 [Abstract] Firstly, the amended sections of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements act of 2007 and 2009 not only make sure of the institutional change of Canadian Equalization program reported by this article, but also require the research on the additional offset payments to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the Equalization payments. Secondly, in the new Formula 2007, the payments are based on a two year lag of the three-year weighted moving average of provincial fiscal capacity which is measured using five tax bases. It was verified by the panel data of ten provinces for three years that the thirty three tax bases used in the previous Formula were just transformed into the five tax bases in the new Formula 2007. Therefore, the structural changes from receiving provinces to non-receiving provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador from 2008-09 respectively depend on their revenue raising performance by excluding 50％ of the natural resource revenues in determining each province's fiscal capacity and by receiving the additional offset payments. Thirdly, even if Ontario, one of receiving province from 2009-10 changes to non-receiving province in future, the amendment act of 2009 will be able to cope with the structural change by using the fiscal capacity of the lowest non-receiving province in the Formula 2007 as a capping measure, in place of the average post-Equalization fiscal capacity of those receiving provinces in the Formula 2009.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".