IESET.
Hypotheses·institutional quality·nordic_outcome_persistence_decomposition_v3

Countries that enacted market-oriented structural reforms with credible institutional commitment (Norway handlingsregel 2001, Sweden pension- architecture reform 1999) experienced systematically better post-treatment GDP-per-capita and unemployment trajectories than their own pre-treatment trends would have predicted.

Countries that entered the euro area without corresponding structural adjustment (Italy 1999, Greece 2001) experienced systematically worse post-treatment trajectories. The v3 hypothesis predicts a positive within-country effect for the reform group and a negative within-country effect for the fiscal-dominance group, identified off their own pre-treatment baselines via country and year fixed effects. This directly addresses the v1/v2 structural limitation: cross-sectional decomposition cannot see timing, but within-country DiD can.

INCONCLUSIVEengine/runs/nordic_outcome_persistence_decomposition_v3

INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment 'reform_post' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

confidence cueResult card produced; verdict unclassified.

policy briefCoverage too thin

In ordinary language

In plain terms, this asks whether reform post is actually linked to better or worse log income pc cost-of-living adjusted from 1996 to 2023.

plain answer

This test cannot make a firm call yet. treatment 'reform_post' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

why it matters

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

how the test works

It compares 10 country or place units from 1996 to 2023, using a panel fe design, with fixed effects for country and year.

what was measured
What changed
  • Reform post
  • Fiscal dominance post
What we checked
  • Log income pc cost-of-living adjusted
  • Unemployment
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

4 input datasets, 0 unresolved missing series, provenance status: partial provenance.

Results

engine/runs/nordic_outcome_persistence_decomposition_v3
Loading chart…

Who has skin in the game — schools predicting on this

17 schools list this hypothesis as a test of their position. The chips below are school-level scoreboard outcomes, not a second hypothesis verdict.

hypothesis verdict vs scoreboard outcome

The banner verdict judges this hypothesis as written. The scoreboard asks whether each school's polarity-corrected prediction was right. Raw status is not a school win: SUPPORTED supports schools that needed SUPPORTED, but refutes schools that needed REFUTED.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-callChicago School Monetarismwins if MIXEDpartial/no-callClassical Liberalwins if MIXEDpartial/no-callDegrowth / Ecological Macroeconomicswins if MIXEDpartial/no-callDemocratic Socialism (Bernsteinian revisionism + modern)wins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callStructuralist / Developmentalistwins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callEco-Socialism / Red-Greenwins if MIXEDpartial/no-callEmpirical Pragmatist (the framework's house position)wins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callNew Institutional Economicswins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callMarket Socialism (Lange-Lerner tradition)wins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callMarxian Political Economywins if MIXEDpartial/no-callMarxism-Leninism (central-planning implementation)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-callModern Monetary Theorywins if MIXEDpartial/no-callNew Keynesian (mainstream synthesis)wins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callOrdoliberalism (Freiburg School)wins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callPost-Keynesianwins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callSocial Democraticwins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-call

Pre-registration

registration ordering unverified
first-spec commit 4c8ce8e · 2026-07-18T22:11:21Z
run generated · 2026-06-29T17:53:23Z
Run timestamp predates this path's first git-add commit (rebase, rename, or pre-git local run). Spec hash is still the path's first-add commit — not repository HEAD — but ordering is not a clean pre-registration proof.

Countries that enacted market-oriented structural reforms with credible institutional commitment (Norway handlingsregel 2001, Sweden pension- architecture reform 1999) experienced systematically better post-treatment GDP-per-capita and unemployment trajectories than their own pre-treatment trends would have predicted. Countries that entered the euro area without corresponding structural adjustment (Italy 1999, Greece 2001) experienced systematically worse post-treatment trajectories. The v3 hypothesis predicts a positive within-country effect for the reform group and a negative within-country effect for the fiscal-dominance group, identified off their own pre-treatment baselines via country and year fixed effects. This directly addresses the v1/v2 structural limitation: cross-sectional decomposition cannot see timing, but within-country DiD can.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

Not supported if either β_reform or β_stagnation has the opposite sign from the pre-registered expectation (positive for reform, negative for stagnation) at the 90% confidence level on the primary outcome (log GDP per capita PPP). Also not supported if the pre-trend placebo detects spurious effects — that would indicate parallel trends is violated and the identification is not clean. A clean pass requires β_reform > 0 at p < 0.10, β_stagnation < 0 at p < 0.10, and the pre-trend placebo coefficient at |t+<0|<1.65 (not statistically distinguishable from zero).

formal test & threshold
test:      within_country_did_signs_and_pretrend_placebo
threshold: β_reform > 0 at p < 0.10  AND β_stagnation < 0 at p < 0.10  AND pre_trend_placebo_t < 1.65 absolute

Method

Template
panel_fe
Fixed effects
country, year
Clustering
country
Sample
10 countries · 1996 – 2023
Evidence type
causal

PanelOLS with country + year fixed effects, cluster-robust SEs by country. Specification: outcome_{i,t} = α_i + γ_t + β_reform * reform_post_{i,t} + β_stagnation * fiscal_dominance_post_{i,t} + Xβ + ε_{i,t} Country FE absorb all time-invariant country features (Nordic culture, geography, social trust, population homogeneity, pre-existing institutional quality) — the concern v1 and v2 could not control for. Year FE absorb global trends and common shocks (2008 GFC, 2020 COVID, etc). β_reform identifies the average post-treatment deviation from each treated country's own pre-treatment trend, net of global year effects. This is a staggered two-way fixed effects DiD. TWFE with staggered treatment has known bias under heterogeneous treatment effects (Goodman-Bacon 2021); v3.1 will run Callaway-Sant'Anna as robustness once that package is installed. For v3 v1, TWFE is the simplest identification that tests the core claim. Secondary specs (reported alongside primary): - event study with ±5 year leads and lags around each treatment date - pre-trend placebo: fake treatment at t-5 to test parallel trends - drop-COVID robustness (2020-2021 excluded)

Data

VariableSourceTransform
log_gdp_pc_ppp
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KDtier 2
log
unemployment
outcome
world_bank_wdi:SL.UEM.TOTL.ZStier 2
level
reform_post
treatment
constructed:indicator = 1 for country-years on or after the country-specific market-oriented reform date; 0 otherwise. Reform dates:tier 5
indicator
fiscal_dominance_post
treatment
constructed:indicator = 1 for country-years on or after the country-specific fiscal-dominance-onset date; 0 otherwise. Dates: ITA=19tier 5
indicator
log_population
control
world_bank_wdi:SP.POP.TOTLtier 2
log
urbanisation
control
world_bank_wdi:SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZStier 2
level

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — nordic_outcome_persistence_decomposition_v3

Verdict: INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment 'reform_post' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Countries that enacted market-oriented structural reforms with credible institutional commitment (Norway handlingsregel 2001, Sweden pension- architecture reform 1999) experienced systematically better post-treatment GDP-per-capita and unemployment trajectories than their own pre-treatment trends would have predicted. Countries that entered the euro area without corresponding structural adjustment (Italy 1999, Greece 2001) experienced systematically worse post-treatment trajectories. The v3 hypothesis predicts a positive within-country effect for the reform group and a negative within-country effect for the fiscal-dominance group, identified off their own pre-treatment baselines via country and year fixed effects. This directly addresses the v1/v2 structural limitation: cross-sectional decomposition cannot see timing, but within-country DiD can.
  • Falsification rule: Not supported if either β_reform or β_stagnation has the opposite sign from the pre-registered expectation (positive for reform, negative for stagnation) at the 90% confidence level on the primary outcome (log GDP per capita PPP). Also not supported if the pre-trend placebo detects spurious effects — that would indicate parallel trends is violated and the identification is not clean. A clean pass requires β_reform > 0 at p < 0.10, β_stagnation < 0 at p < 0.10, and the pre-trend placebo coefficient at |t+<0|<1.65 (not statistically distinguishable from zero).
  • Falsification test: within_country_did_signs_and_pretrend_placebo

Estimate

  • Error: treatment 'reform_post' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

Variables resolved

  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD → log_gdp_pc_ppp (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=8325)
  • world_bank_wdi:SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS → unemployment (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=6874)
  • constructed: indicator = 1 for country-years on or after the country-specific market-oriented reform date; 0 otherwise. Reform dates: NOR=2001 (handlingsregel), SWE=1999 (pension NDC+funded). DNK, FIN, ISL and all SE countries = never-treated on this indicator. → reform_post (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=280)
  • constructed: indicator = 1 for country-years on or after the country-specific fiscal-dominance-onset date; 0 otherwise. Dates: ITA=1999 (euro entry without structural reform), GRC=2001 (euro entry + fiscal accommodation). NOR, SWE, DNK, FIN, ISL, ESP, PRT, FRA = never-treated on this indicator. → fiscal_dominance_post (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=280)
  • world_bank_wdi:SP.POP.TOTL → log_population (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=14447)
  • world_bank_wdi:SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS → urbanisation (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=16965)

Generated by scripts/run_panel_fe.py at 2026-06-29T17:53:23+00:00

Strongest opposing argument

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

Notes

This is the hypothesis the v1 steelman anticipated ("a v3 with within- country decomposition would test a different but related claim"). The related claim is about REFORM TIMING, not average institutional quality. v1 and v2 tested: "are Nordic levels of institutional quality associated with Nordic outcomes?" (mostly no on v1, partly on v2). v3 tests: "did Nordic reform movements at specific dates shift subsequent outcome trajectories?" (testable directly with DiD). Treatment dates are pre-committed and documented in each movement YAML: NOR 2001, SWE 1999, ITA 1999, GRC 2001. All within-sample. DNK, FIN, ISL, FRA, ESP, PRT are never-treated on both indicators; they serve as the comparison group contributing year-FE identification. The four movement YAMLs in movements/ ship together with this spec. Each carries its own steelman and references.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.