IESET.
Hypotheses·distribution·welfare_architecture_market_openness_nordic

Nordic prosperity relative to peer high-income economies is better explained by the combination of generous welfare states with high trade openness, flexible labour markets, and strong competition policy than by welfare-state size alone, over the 1990-2023 period.

PARTIALengine/runs/welfare_architecture_market_openness_nordic

PARTIAL — coef=-8.365e-20, p=0.0538; effect magnitude effectively zero

confidence cueThe result is useful, but not decisive. Treat it as a clue, not a settled conclusion.

policy briefMixed or noisy

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 evidence is suggestive but not decisive. coef=-8.365e-20, p=0.0538; effect magnitude effectively zero

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 16 country or place units from 1990 to 2023, using a panel fe design, with fixed effects for country and year.

what was measured
What changed
  • Social spending share
  • Trade openness
What we checked
  • Real income per capita growth
  • Labour productivity growth
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/welfare_architecture_market_openness_nordic
1007550250199020072023DNKFINISLNORSWEDEUFRA
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show real_gdp_per_capita_growth across 16 sampled countries over 1990–2023.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for welfare_architecture_market_openness_nordic. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/welfare_architecture_market_openness_nordic/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.

Empirical Pragmatist (the framework's house position)wins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callOrdoliberalism (Freiburg School)wins 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 · 2026-06-29T17:52:02Z
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.

Nordic prosperity relative to peer high-income economies is better explained by the combination of generous welfare states with high trade openness, flexible labour markets, and strong competition policy than by welfare-state size alone, over the 1990-2023 period.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

SUPPORTED if the interaction term between social spending and trade openness is positive and significant (p<=0.05), and the marginal effect of social spending on growth is significantly larger at above-median openness than at below-median openness. REFUTED if the interaction is negative and significant with p<=0.05. Otherwise PARTIAL.

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

Method

Template
panel_fe
Fixed effects
country, year
Clustering
country
Sample
16 countries · 1990 – 2023
Evidence type
associational

PanelOLS with country and year FE. The specification interacts social_spending_share with trade_openness and with (1-EPL) and (1-PMR) to test whether welfare-state effects are amplified by market openness and flexibility. Decomposition reports marginal effects at high vs low openness/flexibility.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
real_gdp_per_capita_growth
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
annual_log_growth
labour_productivity_growth
outcome
oecd_stan:gdp_per_hour_workedtier 5
annual_growth
social_spending_share
treatment
world_bank_wdi:NE.CON.GOVT.ZStier 2
level
trade_openness
treatment
world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZStier 2
level
employment_protection_legislation
treatment
oecd:eprc_v1tier 2
level
product_market_regulation
treatment
oecd_pmr:overalltier 4
level
log_gdp_per_capita
control
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
log
tertiary_education
control
world_bank_wdi:SE.TER.ENRRtier 2
level
institutional_quality
control
wgi:GOV_WGI_GE.ESTtier 4
level

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — welfare_architecture_market_openness_nordic

Verdict: PARTIAL — coef=-8.365e-20, p=0.0538; effect magnitude effectively zero

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Nordic prosperity relative to peer high-income economies is better explained by the combination of generous welfare states with high trade openness, flexible labour markets, and strong competition policy than by welfare-state size alone, over the 1990-2023 period.
  • Falsification rule: SUPPORTED if the interaction term between social spending and trade openness is positive and significant (p<=0.05), and the marginal effect of social spending on growth is significantly larger at above-median openness than at below-median openness. REFUTED if the interaction is negative and significant with p<=0.05. Otherwise PARTIAL.
  • Falsification test: panel_fe_interaction_welfare_openness

Estimate

  • Method: linearmodels.PanelOLS
  • Coefficient (treatment): -8.365e-20
  • Std error: 4.311e-20
  • p-value: 0.0538
  • Observations: 230, countries: 12
  • Within R²: 1
  • Fixed effects: entity=True, time=True
  • Clustering: country

Variables resolved

  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KD → real_gdp_per_capita_growth (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=12104)
  • world_bank_wdi:NE.CON.GOVT.ZS → social_spending_share (treatment, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=9133)
  • world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS → trade_openness (treatment, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=10714)
  • oecd_pmr:overall → product_market_regulation (treatment, publisher=oecd_pmr, n=105)
  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KD → log_gdp_per_capita (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=12104)
  • world_bank_wdi:SE.TER.ENRR → tertiary_education (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=7217)
  • wgi:GOV_WGI_GE.EST → institutional_quality (controls, publisher=wgi, n=5168)

Variables missing data

  • oecd_stan:gdp_per_hour_worked (outcome, name=labour_productivity_growth) — vintage not on disk
  • oecd:eprc_v1 (treatment, name=employment_protection_legislation) — vintage not on disk

Generated by scripts/run_panel_fe.py at 2026-06-29T17:52:02+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.