IESET.
Hypotheses·distribution·heritage_government_spending_extreme_poverty_current_gap

Countries in the top quartile of Heritage lower-government-spending score in 2024 have lower latest-available extreme-poverty headcount than bottom-quartile countries, consistent with free-market country policy regimes outperforming less market-oriented regimes on this outcome.

REFUTEDengine/runs/heritage_government_spending_extreme_poverty_current_gap

REFUTED — top-vs-bottom gap has opposite sign and Welch p=2.091e-06

confidence cueThis test cuts against the claim as written or misses its pre-declared threshold.

policy briefNeeds review

In ordinary language

In plain terms, this asks whether government spending is actually linked to better or worse extreme poverty from 2024 to 2024.

plain answer

The data did not support the prediction. top-vs-bottom gap has opposite sign and Welch p=2.091e-06

why it matters

Distributional claims often sound morally clear but are empirically complex. This test asks whether the proposed channel explains real differences across places.

how the test works

It compares 183 country or place units from 2024 to 2024, using a descriptive design.

what was measured
What changed
  • Government spending
What we checked
  • Extreme poverty
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

No evidence packet has been generated yet.

Results

engine/runs/heritage_government_spending_extreme_poverty_current_gap
1007550250202420242024AFGAGOALBAREARGARMAUS
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show extreme_poverty across 183 sampled countries over 2024–2024.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for heritage_government_spending_extreme_poverty_current_gap. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/heritage_government_spending_extreme_poverty_current_gap/chart_data.json.

Pre-registration

pre-registered
first-spec commit 4c8ce8e · 2026-07-18T22:11:21Z

Countries in the top quartile of Heritage lower-government-spending score in 2024 have lower latest-available extreme-poverty headcount than bottom-quartile countries, consistent with free-market country policy regimes outperforming less market-oriented regimes on this outcome.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

SUPPORTED if the high-market quartile has the pre-registered outcome direction versus the low-market quartile at Welch p<=0.10. REFUTED if the opposite direction is significant at p<=0.10. Otherwise PARTIAL; insufficient group coverage is INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING.

formal test & threshold
test:      heritage_market_cross_section_heritage_government_spending_extreme_poverty_current_gap
threshold: [object Object]

Method

Template
descriptive
Sample
183 countries · 2024 – 2024
Evidence type
descriptive

Welch top-vs-bottom quartile mean contrast. This is a screen for broad market-order associations, not a causal policy effect estimate.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
extreme_poverty
outcome
world_bank_wdi:SI.POV.DDAYtier 2
latest_available_country_level_since_2018
government_spending
treatment
heritage_ief:ief_paneltier 4
2024_component_score:government_spending

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — heritage_government_spending_extreme_poverty_current_gap

Verdict: REFUTED — top-vs-bottom gap has opposite sign and Welch p=2.091e-06

Design

  • Heritage component: government_spending using release year 2024.
  • Comparison: top 25% vs bottom 25% of market-score countries.
  • Outcome source: world_bank_wdi:SI.POV.DDAY latest available country observation since 2018.

Estimate

  • High-market mean: 26.384375 over 32 countries.
  • Low-market mean: 1.146875 over 32 countries.
  • Difference, high minus low: 25.237499999999997.
  • Welch p-value: 2.090841988798722e-06.

Caveat

This is a candidate cross-sectional screen. It is useful for broad Austrian/ordoliberal market-order triage, but it is not a causal design and should not be scoreboard-promoted without robustness checks.

Strongest opposing argument

Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.