IESET.
Hypotheses·trade·heritage_property_rights_trade_openness_current_gap

Countries in the top quartile of Heritage property-rights protection in 2024 have higher latest-available trade openness than bottom-quartile countries, consistent with free-market country policy regimes outperforming less market-oriented regimes on this outcome.

SUPPORTEDengine/runs/heritage_property_rights_trade_openness_current_gap

SUPPORTED — top-vs-bottom gap has expected sign + and Welch p=0.0003415

confidence cueThis is a clear pass for the claim as written. It still applies only to this sample, period, and method.

policy briefNeeds review

In ordinary language

When countries open more of the economy to trade and competition, do people end up with better long-run income or productivity outcomes?

plain answer

The data clearly moved in the predicted direction. top-vs-bottom gap has expected sign + and Welch p=0.0003415

why it matters

This matters because trade claims should change belief only when they survive a pre-declared empirical test.

how the test works

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

what was measured
What changed
  • Property rights
What we checked
  • Trade openness
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_property_rights_trade_openness_current_gap
1007550250202420242024AFGAGOALBAREARGARMAUS
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show trade_openness across 183 sampled countries over 2024–2024.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for heritage_property_rights_trade_openness_current_gap. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/heritage_property_rights_trade_openness_current_gap/chart_data.json.

Pre-registration

pre-registered
first-spec commit 080161c · 2026-05-04T10:41:37Z

Countries in the top quartile of Heritage property-rights protection in 2024 have higher latest-available trade openness 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_property_rights_trade_openness_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
trade_openness
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZStier 2
latest_available_country_level_since_2018
property_rights
treatment
heritage_ief:ief_paneltier 4
2024_component_score:property_rights

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — heritage_property_rights_trade_openness_current_gap

Verdict: SUPPORTED — top-vs-bottom gap has expected sign + and Welch p=0.0003415

Design

  • Heritage component: property_rights using release year 2024.
  • Comparison: top 25% vs bottom 25% of market-score countries.
  • Outcome source: world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS latest available country observation since 2018.

Estimate

  • High-market mean: 116.72306047291106 over 42 countries.
  • Low-market mean: 68.8312771904438 over 41 countries.
  • Difference, high minus low: 47.89178328246726.
  • Welch p-value: 0.0003415094486226856.

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.