IESET.
Hypotheses·growth·sweden_1990s_market_reform_recovery

Sweden’s post-1992 crisis market reforms — fiscal consolidation, inflation- targeting adoption, tax and pension overhauls, and product-market deregulation — predict stronger real GDP-per-capita growth during 1995–2024 than its pre-crisis state-expansion model (1975–1990).

The test is whether Sweden’s post-1995 growth trajectory lies above a synthetic counterfactual built from Nordic and continental European peers, and whether a panel treatment coefficient for the post-reform period is positive and significant.

REFUTEDengine/runs/sweden_1990s_market_reform_recovery

refuted

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

policy briefClear refutation

In ordinary language

Over a long period, do more market-oriented institutions translate into higher income or productivity, once the comparison looks beyond a single success story?

plain answer

The data did not support the prediction. refuted

why it matters

Growth claims can look convincing in single success stories. This test asks whether the pattern survives a broader comparison.

how the test works

It compares 11 country or place units from 1975 to 2024, using a event study design.

what was measured
What changed
  • Sweden post 1995
What we checked
  • Real income pc
  • Labour productivity
  • Unemployment rate
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

1 input datasets, 0 unresolved missing series, provenance status: reproducible hash verified.

Results

engine/runs/sweden_1990s_market_reform_recovery
1007550250197520002024SWEDNKNORFINNLDBELAUT
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show real_gdp_pc across 11 sampled countries over 1975–2024.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for sweden_1990s_market_reform_recovery. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/sweden_1990s_market_reform_recovery/chart_data.json.

Who has skin in the game — schools predicting on this

11 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 SUPPORTEDschool refutedChicago School Monetarismwins if SUPPORTEDschool refutedClassical Liberalwins if SUPPORTEDschool refutedDemocratic Socialism (Bernsteinian revisionism + modern)wins if REFUTEDschool supportedStructuralist / Developmentalistwins if MIXEDpartial/no-callEmpirical Pragmatist (the framework's house position)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-callNew Institutional Economicswins if MIXEDpartial/no-callMarxism-Leninism (central-planning implementation)wins if REFUTEDschool supportedOrdoliberalism (Freiburg School)wins if SUPPORTEDschool refutedPost-Keynesianwins if REFUTEDschool supportedSocial Democraticwins if REFUTEDschool supported

Pre-registration

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

Sweden’s post-1992 crisis market reforms — fiscal consolidation, inflation- targeting adoption, tax and pension overhauls, and product-market deregulation — predict stronger real GDP-per-capita growth during 1995–2024 than its pre-crisis state-expansion model (1975–1990). The test is whether Sweden’s post-1995 growth trajectory lies above a synthetic counterfactual built from Nordic and continental European peers, and whether a panel treatment coefficient for the post-reform period is positive and significant.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

Refuted if the post-1995 event-study coefficients for SWE are negative and significant at p<0.05 for at least two consecutive years, or if the cumulative log GDP-pc gap vs synthetic counterfactual is negative over 1995–2024.

formal test & threshold
test:      event_study_sweden_reform
threshold: post_1995_coef > 0 AND p < 0.10 for majority of years; synthetic_gap > 0.

Method

Template
event_study
Clustering
country
Sample
11 countries · 1975 – 2024
Evidence type
causal

Primary: event-study with SWE treated from 1995, estimating dynamic treatment effects relative to pre-reform trend. Secondary: synthetic control for SWE using Nordic and continental peers.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
real_gdp_pc
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
log_level
labour_productivity
outcome
world_bank_wdi:SL.GDP.PCAP.EM.KDtier 2
level
unemployment_rate
outcome
world_bank_wdi:SL.UEM.TOTL.ZStier 2
level
tfp_index
outcome
pwt:rtfpnatier 3
level
sweden_post_1995
treatment
constructed:1 for SWE from 1995 onwardtier 5
binary
initial_gdp_pc_1975
control
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
level_at_1975
human_capital
control
pwt:hctier 3
level
trade_openness
control
world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZStier 2
level
wgi_govt_effectiveness
control
wgi:GE.ESTtier 4
level
eu_membership_dummy
control
constructed:1 from 1995 for SWE, FIN, AUT; 1973 for DNK, GBR, IRLtier 5
binary

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — sweden_1990s_market_reform_recovery

Verdict: refuted — Sweden slope +0.25pp/yr at or below median +0.32pp/yr.

Sweden vs 7 Nordic/EU comparators, endpoint slope 1991-2019.

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.