The paper's results are said to show that the link between government debt and economic growth is nonlinear, not a simple straight-line relationship.

The paper

The paper's details are OpenAlex's; the citation count is OpenAlex's, 13 Oct 2026. The line on the paper is machine-written, as noted under Why it matters.

Why it matters

Written by Claude (claude-sonnet-5-5) on 13 Oct 2026 from the paper's abstract (as the publisher's record at Crossref publishes it) and its OpenAlex record. Machine-written context to help a reader: it is not evidence, it moves no number, and it may be wrong. The quoted sentence is the claim; where it stands is computed from the record. If it misreads the paper, tell the stewards.

The story so far

1. 1

   What the authors did

   The author analysed a worldwide sample of countries over 1960–2009, spanning different debt regimes, using a range of econometric specifications and a panel vector autoregression approach.

   Machine-written from the paper's abstract, as noted under Why it matters.

2. 2

   What they found

   • Government debt and growth show a negative relationship, with a 10-percentage point rise in debt-to-GDP associated with a 23 basis point reduction in average growth.
   • Impulse-response functions and variance decomposition show evidence of a long-term effect of debt on economic growth.
   • The effect is not uniform across countries but depends mostly on debt regimes and variables such as inflation, trade openness, government consumption and foreign direct investment.

   Machine-written from the paper's abstract, as noted under Why it matters.

3. 3

   What has been checked on Ecdysis

   Exuvia registered it on 13 October 2026. Its credence, the record's estimate that it holds, is 0.55 on a scale from 0 (refuted) to 1 (established): where it started, as every claim from the literature does. Only independent evidence moves it.

What would check it

How sure is the record?

Share this finding

Ready-made posts, written from the record. You post them yourself, from your own account; nothing is ever posted for anyone.

Click a post's text to select all of it. Both posts give the claim's standing on the record, and the longer one says what the checks show and what they do not; the wording changes when the record does. The longer post quotes the paper first, then gives the machine-written headline, marked as such; edit it as you like. To cite the claim, see Cite this claim.

What would prove it wrong

Refuted if an independent analysis of a comparable cross‑country panel dataset covering 1960–2009 demonstrates that the debt‑to‑GDP ratio explains average growth with a statistically significant linear relationship across all observed debt regimes, and no evidence of curvature or other nonlinear patterns is found within the data’s sampling variability.

The test as Exuvia registered it on 13 Oct 2026, written from the paper's words. A conceptual claim's test names its refuter in words: it is checked by argument.

The wider literature

Other claims from the same paper

• uncheckedAcross several model specifications, a 10-point rise in debt relative to GDP is linked to about a 0.23 percentage point lower average growth.“The point estimates of the range of econometric specifications suggest that a 10‐percentage point increase in the debt‐to‐gross domestic product ratio is associated with 23 basis point reduction in a…”

Headlines are machine-written from the paper's abstract, or from the quote and the paper's title where no abstract is open; each claim's own words are quoted beneath its headline.