IESET.
Hypotheses·trade·trade_lib_brazil_mercosur_tariff_schedule

Brazil's tariff schedule under Mercosur Common External Tariff (CET) commitments has been historically high relative to other middle-income economies and has not declined materially over 1995-2020 — Brazil weighted applied tariffs hovered around 10-12% throughout the period vs OECD median ~3% and emerging Asia median ~6-7%.

The descriptive claim is that Mercosur acted as a tariff-floor mechanism that prevented unilateral liberalisation rather than as a stepping-stone to deeper integration.

REFUTEDengine/runs/trade_lib_brazil_mercosur_tariff_schedule

REFUTED — shape=panel_summary, sign + OPPOSITE claim -; |Δ_log|=0.846, ratio=2.33; threshold 12.0%, observed 84.6%

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

policy briefNeeds review

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. shape=panel_summary, sign + OPPOSITE claim -; |Δ_log|=0.846, ratio=2.33; threshold 12.0%, observed 84.6%

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 10 country or place units from 1995 to 2020, using a descriptive design.

what was measured
What we checked
  • Weighted applied tariff
  • Trade openness pct income
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

0 input datasets, 0 unresolved missing series, provenance status: no input vintages recorded.

Results

engine/runs/trade_lib_brazil_mercosur_tariff_schedule
1007550250199520082020BRAARGMEXCHLCOLIDNIND
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show weighted_applied_tariff across 10 sampled countries over 1995–2020.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for trade_lib_brazil_mercosur_tariff_schedule. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/trade_lib_brazil_mercosur_tariff_schedule/chart_data.json.

Who has skin in the game — schools predicting on this

3 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.

Democratic Socialism (Bernsteinian revisionism + modern)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-callNew Institutional Economicswins if MIXEDpartial/no-callMarxism-Leninism (central-planning implementation)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-call

Pre-registration

registration ordering unverified
first-spec commit 4c8ce8e · 2026-07-18T22:11:21Z
run generated · 2026-05-15T20:30:52Z
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.

Brazil's tariff schedule under Mercosur Common External Tariff (CET) commitments has been historically high relative to other middle-income economies and has not declined materially over 1995-2020 — Brazil weighted applied tariffs hovered around 10-12% throughout the period vs OECD median ~3% and emerging Asia median ~6-7%. The descriptive claim is that Mercosur acted as a tariff-floor mechanism that prevented unilateral liberalisation rather than as a stepping-stone to deeper integration.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

SUPPORTED if mean Brazil weighted applied tariff 2010-2020 minus mean comparator (Asian-EM mean) tariff 2010-2020 exceeds +3 pp AND Brazil tariff change 1995-2020 is small (|change| < 5 pp). REFUTED if Brazil-comparator gap is small or Brazil tariff dropped substantially.

formal test & threshold
test:      descriptive_brazil_vs_em_tariff_persistence
threshold: PRIMARY: BRA-comparator tariff differential 2010-2020 >= +3 pp AND BRA tariff change 1995-2020 |< 5 pp|.

Method

Template
descriptive
Clustering
none
Sample
10 countries · 1995 – 2020
Evidence type
descriptive

Descriptive comparison. Reports weighted applied tariff trajectories for Brazil vs comparator emerging-market economies over 1995-2020. Tests whether Brazil's tariff differential persists.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
weighted_applied_tariff
outcome
world_bank_wdi:TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZStier 2
level
trade_openness_pct_gdp
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZStier 2
level

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — trade_lib_brazil_mercosur_tariff_schedule

Verdict: REFUTED — shape=panel_summary, sign + OPPOSITE claim -; |Δ_log|=0.846, ratio=2.33; threshold 12.0%, observed 84.6%

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Brazil's tariff schedule under Mercosur Common External Tariff (CET) commitments has been historically high relative to other middle-income economies and has not declined materially over 1995-2020 — Brazil weighted applied tariffs hovered around 10-12% throughout the period vs OECD median ~3% and emerging Asia median ~6-7%. The descriptive claim is that Mercosur acted as a tariff-floor mechanism that prevented unilateral liberalisation rather than as a stepping-stone to deeper integration.
  • Falsification rule: SUPPORTED if mean Brazil weighted applied tariff 2010-2020 minus mean comparator (Asian-EM mean) tariff 2010-2020 exceeds +3 pp AND Brazil tariff change 1995-2020 is small (|change| < 5 pp). REFUTED if Brazil-comparator gap is small or Brazil tariff dropped substantially.
  • Falsification test: descriptive_brazil_vs_em_tariff_persistence

Comparison

  • shape: panel_summary
  • treatment_country: BRA
  • treatment_value: 8.200000000000001
  • donor_pool_median: 3.52
  • ratio: 2.329545454545455
  • log_diff: 0.8456731646602018
  • n_donor_countries: 9
  • end_year_window: [2015, 2020]

Extracted threshold: {'percent': 12.0}

Variables resolved

  • world_bank_wdi:TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS → weighted_applied_tariff (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=3806)
  • world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS → trade_openness_pct_gdp (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=10714)

Generated by scripts/run_descriptive.py at 2026-05-15T20:30:52+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.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.