IESET.
Hypotheses·distribution·redistribution_tax_transfer_mobility_oecd

Across OECD countries with comparable intergenerational mobility measures, higher tax-and-transfer redistribution is not sufficient to predict higher mobility after controlling for GDP per capita, education attainment, housing affordability, and rule of law.

The mechanism tested is whether mobility is generated by opportunity institutions and market access rather than by disposable-income compression alone.

INCONCLUSIVEengine/runs/redistribution_tax_transfer_mobility_oecd

INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — no AUS obs near end-period

confidence cueResult card produced; verdict unclassified.

policy briefCoverage too thin

In ordinary language

Do children have a better shot at moving up when schools, housing, and neighborhoods give them access to opportunity, rather than simply because a country redistributes more income?

plain answer

This test cannot make a firm call yet. no AUS obs near end-period

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 20 country or place units from 1990 to 2020, using a descriptive design.

what was measured
What changed
  • Tax revenue share
  • Social spending share
What we checked
  • How strongly parents' income predicts their children's income
  • Chance that children from low-income families reach the top
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/redistribution_tax_transfer_mobility_oecd
1007550250199020052020AUSAUTBELCANCHEDEUDNK
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show intergenerational_earnings_elasticity across 20 sampled countries over 1990–2020.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for redistribution_tax_transfer_mobility_oecd. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/redistribution_tax_transfer_mobility_oecd/chart_data.json.

Pre-registration

registration ordering unverified
first-spec commit 4c8ce8e · 2026-07-18T22:11:21Z
run generated · 2026-06-28T20:06:19Z
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.

Across OECD countries with comparable intergenerational mobility measures, higher tax-and-transfer redistribution is not sufficient to predict higher mobility after controlling for GDP per capita, education attainment, housing affordability, and rule of law. The mechanism tested is whether mobility is generated by opportunity institutions and market access rather than by disposable-income compression alone.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

Supported if redistribution variables have lower joint partial R-squared than education, housing, and rule-of-law controls, and if disposable_income_gini does not have the predicted sign at p <= 0.10. Refuted if redistribution variables dominate the opportunity controls and lower Gini significantly predicts higher mobility.

formal test & threshold
test:      cross_section_partial_r2_redistribution_vs_opportunity_mobility
threshold: [object Object]

Method

Template
descriptive
Clustering
country
Sample
20 countries · 1990 – 2020
Evidence type
associational

Small-n cross-sectional regression with standardized variables, bootstrap confidence intervals, and leave-one-out sensitivity. Report partial R-squared for redistribution variables versus opportunity controls.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
intergenerational_earnings_elasticity
outcome
owid:intergenerational-earnings-elasticitytier 2
level
bottom_to_top_quintile_transition_probability
outcome
owid:share-of-children-in-the-bottom-quintile-who-make-it-to-the-top-quintiletier 2
level
tax_revenue_share
treatment
world_bank_wdi:GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZStier 2
period_mean
social_spending_share
treatment
oecd:OECD.SOCXtier 2
period_mean
disposable_income_gini
treatment
world_bank_wdi:SI.POV.GINItier 2
period_mean
log_gdp_per_capita_ppp
control
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KDtier 2
period_mean_log
tertiary_attainment
control
world_bank_wdi:SE.TER.CUAT.BA.ZStier 2
period_mean
housing_price_index
control
bis:WS_SPPtier 2
period_mean
rule_of_law
control
wgi:RL.ESTtier 4
period_mean

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — redistribution_tax_transfer_mobility_oecd

Verdict: INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — no AUS obs near end-period

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Across OECD countries with comparable intergenerational mobility measures, higher tax-and-transfer redistribution is not sufficient to predict higher mobility after controlling for GDP per capita, education attainment, housing affordability, and rule of law. The mechanism tested is whether mobility is generated by opportunity institutions and market access rather than by disposable-income compression alone.
  • Falsification rule: Supported if redistribution variables have lower joint partial R-squared than education, housing, and rule-of-law controls, and if disposable_income_gini does not have the predicted sign at p <= 0.10. Refuted if redistribution variables dominate the opportunity controls and lower Gini significantly predicts higher mobility.
  • Falsification test: cross_section_partial_r2_redistribution_vs_opportunity_mobility

Comparison

  • Error: no AUS obs near end-period

Variables resolved

  • owid:intergenerational-earnings-elasticity → intergenerational_earnings_elasticity (outcome, publisher=owid, n=12)
  • world_bank_wdi:GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS → tax_revenue_share (treatment, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=5577)
  • world_bank_wdi:SI.POV.GINI → disposable_income_gini (treatment, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=2430)
  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD → log_gdp_per_capita_ppp (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=8325)
  • world_bank_wdi:SE.TER.CUAT.BA.ZS → tertiary_attainment (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=1403)
  • bis:WS_SPP → housing_price_index (controls, publisher=bis, n=2272)
  • wgi:RL.EST → rule_of_law (controls, publisher=wgi, n=5296)

Variables missing data

  • owid:share-of-children-in-the-bottom-quintile-who-make-it-to-the-top-quintile (outcome, name=bottom_to_top_quintile_transition_probability)
  • oecd:OECD.SOCX (treatment, name=social_spending_share)

Generated by scripts/run_descriptive.py at 2026-06-28T20:06:19+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 candidate intentionally targets the mechanism "redistribution creates mobility" rather than broad claims about equality or justice.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.