Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Impact of Socio-Economic Challenges and Technological Progress on Economic Inequality: An Estimation with the Perelman Model and Ricci Flow Methods

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A differential equation built from Perelman's Ricci flow is claimed to govern Georgia's Gini coefficient, with technology and social protection as the main inequality-reducing forces.

desk verdict The Ricci flow apparatus is decorative; the paper's own numbers contradict its equations, and the empirical claims are unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00800 v1 pith:FFTAD66L submitted 2025-01-01 econ.EM math.DG

Davit Gondauri This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EMmath.DG
keywords economicinequalityGinicoefficientRicciflowPerelmanmodeltechnologicalprogresssocialprotectionprogramsGeorgiasensitivityanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the evolution of Georgia's Gini coefficient can be described by a differential equation built on Perelman's Ricci-flow formalism, with sixteen economic and social parameters acting as the 'curvature' of an economic space. The core empirical claim is that technological innovation and social protection programs reduce inequality, while productivity, education, and R&D investment support inclusive development and unemployment, inflation, and negative capital flows push the other way. The author reports fitted $R^2$ values of 80\u201390% and Z-statistics below 0.05 as evidence that the model tracks the data. If true, the model gives a single geometric framework for ranking policy levers against inequality and for predicting how automation changes the Gini coefficient over time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equation system (Eqs. (1)\u2013(4)). Eq. (1) is an assumed law of motion for the Gini coefficient that couples the squared speed of income-distribution change, a technology term $\beta A(t)G(t)$, a 'smoothness' term $\gamma\int_M(R_{ij}+\nabla_i\nabla_j f)\,dV$, and an unemployment term $\delta U(t)$. Eq. (3) rewrites the curvature $R(x,t)$ as a weighted sum of the sixteen parameters with weights $\alpha_k$, and Eq. (4) imports Perelman's $W$-functional as an entropy measure so that changes in $W$ are interpreted as the economic space smoothing toward equality. The mechanism doing the work is analogy: technology adoption $A(t)$ evolves by a logistic curve (Eq. (5)), and the model treats high Gini values as 'stretched' geometry and low Gini values as 'smooth' geometry.

What would settle it

Estimate Eq. (1) directly on annual Georgian data for 2014\u20132023 with the sixteen drivers, using the sign convention of the reported estimates; if the fitted coefficients do not reproduce the reported signs, with technology, education, and social protection reducing inequality growth and unemployment increasing it, while holding $R^2$ at or above 0.80 and Z-statistics below 0.05, the model's core empirical claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the Gini coefficient $G(t)$ obeys a law of motion the author derives from Perelman's entropy functional: $\frac{dG}{dt} = -\alpha\int_M(\partial P/\partial t)^2 dV + \beta(A(t)G(t)) - \gamma\int_M(R_{ij}+\nabla_i\nabla_j f)\,dV - \delta U(t)$, where $P(x,t)$ is the income distribution, $A(t)$ is a logistic technology-adoption function, $R_{ij}$ is the economic 'curvature' expressed as a weighted sum of sixteen Georgian parameters in Eq. (3), $f$ is a potential function for education, health, innovation and similar forces, and $U(t)$ is unemployment. The paper reports that applying this system to 2014\u20132023 Georgian data gives social protection programs the largest inequality-reducing Ricci flow (+25.3%) and technology access a large positive effect (+22.4%), with productivity, education, and innovation also reducing inequality growth. It reports $W(g,f,\tau)=2{,}795$, $dG/dt=13{,}219$, $R^2$ values of 80\u201390%, and Z-statistics below 0.05, and reads these as confirmation that technological innovation and social protection programs lower inequality.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Eq. (1) is a genuine law of motion for Georgia's Gini coefficient, not a geometric metaphor; if it is only an analogy, then the sign of every reported effect, including the unemployment coefficient, is an assumption restated as a result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (1) is a valid law of motion, then each 5-percentage-point increase in the technology-adoption function $A(t)$ lowers the Gini coefficient's rate of change by roughly 3.3 percentage points over the range the paper tabulates.
  • The fitted coefficients imply that expanding social protection programs is the single most effective inequality-reducing policy among the sixteen parameters, ahead of education and technology access.
  • The model predicts that rising unemployment and negative net migration or capital flows increase inequality growth, so labor-market and capital-flow policies are inequality policies.
  • Because the model reports $R^2$ values of 80\u201390% and Z-statistics below 0.05, the author treats the parameter rankings as statistically reliable and usable for ordering Georgian policy priorities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same Ricci-flow system were fitted to other transition economies, the model's sign pattern could be tested cross-nationally; a country with strong technology access but weak social protection should show a larger predicted inequality drop from welfare expansion.
  • The paper leaves the curvature term unmeasured separately from the sixteen-parameter linear combination, so a natural extension would be to estimate Eq. (1) with the curvature term as an explicit latent variable and test whether it is statistically distinguishable from zero.
  • The sensitivity table implies a falsifiable policy arithmetic: a sustained 35% rise in technology diffusion should reduce the Gini growth rate by about 23 percentage points, a magnitude that Georgian household and labor-force data could check directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims to model the dynamics of Georgia's Gini coefficient using a Perelman/Ricci-flow framework, in which a differential equation, Eq. (1), is asserted as the law of motion, a 16-parameter weighted sum, Eq. (3), represents economic "curvature," and a Perelman W-functional, Eq. (4), is introduced as a system diagnostic. The empirical core is an Excel-based exercise that reports 16 "Ricci flow" values in Table 1, a set of mathematical parameters in Table 2, and a sensitivity analysis of technological progress in Table 3. The stated conclusions are that technological innovation and social protection programs reduce inequality, that unemployment raises inequality, and that the model is validated by R² values of 80–90% and Z-statistics below 0.05. No estimation procedure, data set, or regression output is provided.

Significance. If the model were derived from economic theory and estimated with actual Georgian data, the paper might offer a novel connection between geometric analysis and inequality dynamics. As it stands, the significance is nil: the central law of motion is not derived, the reported numerical results are internally inconsistent, the claimed fit statistics are unverifiable because no outputs or procedures are given, and the policy conclusions are restatements of assumed coefficient signs. The one verifiable strength is the transparency of the numerical claims in Tables 2 and 3, which allows a reader to test them directly; that test fails.

major comments (5)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is asserted without derivation, economic justification, or estimation procedure, yet it is the load-bearing law of motion for the Gini coefficient. Moreover, its sign structure contradicts the text: Eq. (1) subtracts δ·U(t), so with the Table 2 values δ=23.4 and U=262 a positive unemployment rate would lower dG/dt, i.e., reduce inequality. The text and Table 2 (item 4) state instead that increases in unemployment directly cause increases in inequality. This is not a nuance: the sign of the unemployment effect is reversed by the paper's own equation.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 contains mathematically impossible entries. Row 9 gives f=0 but row 12 gives e^(-f)=92.7, whereas e^0=1. Row 11 gives (4πτ)^(-n/2)=1.01 for τ=15 and n=16; (4π·15)^(-8) = (60π)^(-8) ≈ 1.2×10^(-19), not 1.01. The paper also states that the natural base e is approximately -2.718, which is false. These inconsistencies undermine the claimed W-functional computation, so the reported W(g,f,τ)=2,795 and dG/dt=13,219 have no reliable basis.
  3. [Methodology, Eq. (6) and Table 3] The sensitivity analysis is a linear pass-through of an assumed coefficient, not an independent test. Equation (6) sets dG/dt = β·A(t) + other factors with β=-5.7 as reported in Table 2. A 5% increase in A(t) would then change dG/dt by -5.7×0.05 = -0.285 (or -28.5 if A(t) is scaled in percentage points), whereas Table 3 reports -3.30. The factor of about 11.6 is unexplained, and no alternative computation is provided. Hence the conclusion that each 5% increase in A(t) yields a -3.30 change in the Gini rate is an arithmetic artifact that does not follow from Eq. (6).
  4. [Results, Table 1] The paper claims model accuracy through R² values of 80–90% and Z-statistics below 0.05, but no regression output, estimation algorithm, sample size, or standard errors are reported anywhere. The only description is that "linear regression methods were used to determine the regression coefficient (slope)" for each parameter against GDP. This is insufficient, and the claimed fit statistics cannot be checked; they therefore do not validate the model. The 16 α weights in Table 1 are likewise presented without a stated estimation procedure, despite being central to Eq. (3).
  5. [Conclusions (circularity)] The qualitative conclusions are embedded in the assumed signs of coefficients rather than derived from data. For example, Eq. (1) includes the term -∫(R_ij+∇_i∇_j f)dV and the text assigns social protection programs and education a negative contribution, after which the conclusions state that social protection and education reduce inequality. The positive/negative signs of β, γ, δ, and the α weights are inputs to the exercise, not outputs of an estimation, so the policy recommendations cannot be described as results of the analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The paper contains numerous typographical and presentation errors, including "sensitive analyze" (Abstract and Keywords), "the knowledge of the essayist" (Methodology), and inconsistent notation for the Gini coefficient (G_t, G(t), Gt).
  2. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5) has unmatched parentheses: A(t) = η(t)·(1 - 1/(1+e^(-δ·(t-t0))) is missing a closing parenthesis at the end.
  3. [Methodology, e value] The paper states that e "characterizes the natural logarithmic base used in exponential growth models, with the value approximately -2.718"; the correct value is +2.718.
  4. [References] The reference list contains inconsistencies, including Acemoglu and Restrepo (2020) cited in the text as 2021, and the 2021 item in the text appears as Acemoglu and Restrepo (2021) while the reference list gives 2020. The bibliography also omits a citation for the Perelman 2008 work beyond the textual mention.
  5. [Table 3] Table 3's title is duplicated across pages and the column "Gini Rate of Change" lacks units (percent vs. percentage points), which complicates verification.
  6. [Data Availability] The statement "Not applicable" is inappropriate for an empirical paper that claims to use Georgian data; the data sources in Table 1 are not sufficient for replication.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The paper's sensitivity analysis and policy conclusions are arithmetic on author-assigned coefficients rather than empirical predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methodology, Eq. (6); Results, Table 3]
    "A sensitivity analysis evaluates the dynamics of the impact of technological progress and automation on A(t) with respect to the rate of change of the Gini coefficient. In the given analysis, each percentage increase in A(t) value has a different effect on the change in Gini, as determined by the following algorithm: dG_t/dt = β ∙ A(t) + other factors, (6). ... Table 3: Increase A(t) in % Gini Rate of Change: 5 -3.30; 10.0 -6.60; 15.0 -9.90; 20.0 -13.20; 25.0 -16.50; 30.0 -19.80; 35.0 -23.10."

    The sensitivity predictions are linear in the chosen A(t) increments: each 5% step changes dG/dt by -3.30, i.e., a constant marginal effect. Table 2 supplies β=-5.7, and Eq. (6) says the effect is β·A(t). The Table 3 numbers are therefore just the input coefficient β (or a rescaling of it) multiplied by the user-selected scenario values. No independent variation in A(t), no data, and no estimation is used. The conclusion that technological progress reduces inequality is the sign of β read back through the author-defined equation, exactly the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern.

  2. self definitional [Methodology, Eq. (1); Results, Table 2]
    "The formula provided below is developed by the author of the article, based on the knowledge of the essayist. The established formula represents that the economic inequality (the Gini coefficient G(t)) is developed by effectively using the following parameters. ... dG_t/dt = −α ∫ (∂P(x,t)/∂t)² M dV + β ∙ (A(t) ∙ G(t)) − γ ∙ ∫ (Rij + ∇i∇j f(x,t)) dV − δ ∙ U(t), (1). ... Table 2: δ (the effect of unemployment on G(t)) 23.4; β (the coefficient of influence of technological progress or innovative activity on the Gini coefficient) -5.7."

    Equation (1) is not derived from economic theory or estimated from data; it is declared by the author. The qualitative conclusions are already encoded in the signs of the coefficients: a positive δ in the unemployment term is the basis for the prose claim that unemployment increases inequality, and a negative β is the basis for the claim that technology reduces inequality. The text even states that 'the increase in unemployment directly causes increases in economic inequality,' but with δ>0 the term -δ·U(t) would decrease dG/dt. Either way, the 'findings' are restatements of assumed coefficient signs, not results produced by an empirical model.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Results, Table 1 and note]
    "Table 1. Ricci Flow Results for 16 Key Parameters of the Georgian Economy ... 2 Productivity (GDP/hr) 11.0007463 2.397963 24.3 0.58 ... 15 Social Protection Programs 5340.3 8.583037 25.3 2.17 ... Note: ... LN - natural logarithm of the parameter value; Value α - adjusted coefficient reflecting the parameter's contribution to the Ric ci flow model."

    Every 'Ricci flow' entry in Table 1 is exactly LN Value × α / 100. For example, 2.397963 × 24.3 / 100 = 0.58, and 8.583037 × 25.3 / 100 = 2.17. The column presented as a model output is therefore just the input parameter's logarithm rescaled by the author-assigned α weight. The later conclusion that social protection programs have the highest impact is an arithmetic consequence of multiplying a large logarithm by a large α, not an independently estimated 'Ricci flow result.'

full rationale

The paper's central claims reduce to its own definitions and assumed coefficients rather than to estimated relationships. The sensitivity analysis in Eq. (6) and Table 3 is a linear pass-through of the input β applied to user-chosen A(t) increments; it tests nothing. The qualitative findings about unemployment, technology, and social protection are already inserted as signs in Eq. (1) and Table 2, which is presented as a formula 'developed by the author' with coefficients computed 'using Microsoft Excel' but no estimating regression. Table 1's 'Ricci flow' column is exactly ln(value)×α/100, so the ranking of parameters is an arithmetic rescaling of the inputs. There is no external benchmark, no out-of-sample check, and no reported estimation procedure: the claimed high R² values and Z-statistics are asserted but never documented. The derivation chain is closed by construction rather than opened to empirical testing, so the circularity score is high.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central model depends on several asserted coefficients, a metaphorical mapping from economics to Riemannian geometry, and unmeasured constructs such as economic curvature and a potential force field. No free parameter is estimated in a documented way, and the main invented entities have no falsifiable handle outside the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha, beta, gamma, delta in Eq. (1) = alpha = -5.8, gamma = -11.8, delta = 23.4, beta = -5.7 (Table 2)
    Sensitivity coefficients are asserted in Table 2 without an estimation procedure, and their signs determine the qualitative conclusions.
  • alpha_k weights in Eq. (3) = 16 values in Table 1, e.g. education 7.03, social protection 8.58
    The weights are labeled adjusted coefficients, but no regression output, standard errors, or estimation procedure is shown.
  • eta(t), delta, and t0 in A(t), Eq. (5) = not specified
    Shape parameters for the technology impact function are introduced without being estimated or calibrated to data.
  • tau, n, and f in the W-functional = tau = 15, n = 16, f = 0 (Table 2)
    These chosen values are used to compute W and dG/dt; f=0 is incompatible with the reported e^{-f}=92.7.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The Gini coefficient evolves according to the asserted Eq. (1).
    No derivation from economic theory or geometric theory is given; it is introduced as the author's formula in the Methodology.
  • domain assumption Economic inequality can be represented as curvature on a manifold M evolving under Ricci flow.
    The mapping from income distribution to Riemannian curvature is metaphorical; no metric, atlas, or data mapping is specified.
  • domain assumption Standard properties of Perelman's W-functional transfer to economic variables.
    Eq. (4) imports the W-functional unchanged, but no economic interpretation of g, f, and tau is established.
  • ad hoc to paper The reported R² and Z statistics are valid measures of model accuracy.
    No regression output is provided, and Z statistic below 0.05 is not a conventional significance criterion.
invented entities (2)
  • Economic manifold M with Ricci curvature R_ij
    purpose: To represent Georgia's economy as a geometric space whose local curvature encodes inequality.
    M is defined only verbally as economic space or area; no metric, geometric data, or observable handle is provided.
  • Potential function f(x,t) as an economic force field
    purpose: To encode external economic forces in the W-functional and gradient terms.
    No measurement procedure is given, and Table 2 sets f=0 while reporting e^{-f}=92.7, which is internally inconsistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Socio-Economic Challenges and Technological Progress on Economic Inequality: An Estimation with the Perelman Model and Ricci Flow Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFTAD66L

@misc{pith2026250100800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Socio-Economic Challenges and Technological Progress on Economic Inequality: An Estimation with the Perelman Model and Ricci Flow Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFTAD66L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00800}
}
read the original abstract

The article examines the impact of 16 key parameters of the Georgian economy on economic inequality, using the Perelman model and Ricci flow mathematical methods. The study aims to conduct a deep analysis of the impact of socio-economic challenges and technological progress on the dynamics of the Gini coefficient. The article examines the following parameters: income distribution, productivity (GDP per hour), unemployment rate, investment rate, inflation rate, migration (net negative), education level, social mobility, trade infrastructure, capital flows, innovative activities, access to healthcare, fiscal policy (budget deficit), international trade (turnover relative to GDP), social protection programs, and technological access. The results of the study confirm that technological innovations and social protection programs have a positive impact on reducing inequality. Productivity growth, improving the quality of education, and strengthening R&D investments increase the possibility of inclusive development. Sensitivity analysis shows that social mobility and infrastructure are important factors that affect economic stability. The accuracy of the model is confirmed by high R^2 values (80-90%) and the statistical reliability of the Z-statistic (<0.05). The study uses Ricci flow methods, which allow for a geometric analysis of the transformation of economic parameters in time and space. Recommendations include the strategic introduction of technological progress, the expansion of social protection programs, improving the quality of education, and encouraging international trade, which will contribute to economic sustainability and reduce inequality. The article highlights multifaceted approaches that combine technological innovation and responses to socio-economic challenges to ensure sustainable and inclusive economic development.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Identification and Study of Irregular Radio Sources with SKA Continuum Surveys

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A solicited SKA science chapter reviewing how bent-tail and winged radio galaxies will be identified and studied with SKA continuum surveys; no new data or derivations are presented.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1), 7–72. [CrossRef]

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from us labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188–2244. [CrossRef]

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2022). Demographics and automation. The Review of Economic Studies, 89(1), 1–44. [CrossRef]

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    M., Ali, S., Sultan, M., Ashiq, M., & Rafiq , M

    Adil, H. M., Ali, S., Sultan, M., Ashiq, M., & Rafiq , M. (2024). Open education resources’ benefits and challenges in the academic world: A systematic review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 73(3), 274–291. [CrossRef]

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Akaev, A., Sarygulov, A., & Sokolov, V. (2021). Technological development: Models of economic growth and distribution of income. In T. Devezas, J. Leitão, & A. Sarygulov (Eds.), The Economics of Digital Transformation: Approaching Non-stable and Uncertain Digitalized Production Systems (pp. 45–65). Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef]

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    F., Lentsch, A., Yu, N., Barmack, S., Kim, S., Acemoglu, D., Hart, J., Johnson, S., & Ahmed, F

    Alam, M. F., Lentsch, A., Yu, N., Barmack, S., Kim, S., Acemoglu, D., Hart, J., Johnson, S., & Ahmed, F. (2024). From automation to augmentation: Redefining engineering design and manufacturing in the age of nextgen-ai. An MIT Exploration of Generative AI. [CrossRef]

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Bhatt, A., Shetty, K., & Shah, H. (2023). Impact of Logistics Performance Index on International Trade. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 11(3), 94. [Link]

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A., Cramer, J

    Bolhuis, M. A., Cramer, J. N. L., & Summers, L. H. (2022). Comparing past and present inflation. Review of Finance, 26(5), 1073–1100. [CrossRef]

    work page 2022

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Botelho, F. H. F. (2021) . Accessibility to Digital Technology: Virtual Barriers, Real Opportunities. Assistive Technology, 33(1), 27-34. [CrossRef]

    2021

  2. [10]

    Cabral-Gouveia, C., Menezes, I., & Neves, T. (2023). Educational strategies to reduce the achievement gap: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1155741. [CrossRef]

    2023

  3. [11]

    Dieppe, A., Francis, N., & Kindberg-Hanlon, G. (2021). Technological and non-technological drivers of productivity dynamics in developed and emerging market economies. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 131, 104216. [CrossRef]

    2021

  4. [12]

    Feng, Y., Lagakos, D., & Rauch, J. E. (2024). Unemployment and development. The Economic Journal, 134(658), 614–647. [CrossRef]

    2024

  5. [13]

    Fidrmuc, J., Fiedler, P., & Reck, F. (2021). Automation, digitalization, and income inequality in europe. Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 71(3), 203–219. [CrossRef]

    2021

  6. [14]

    Fujita, S. (2023). Income inequality in terms of a Gini coefficient: A Kaleckian perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 47(6), 1087–1106. [CrossRef]

    2023

  7. [15]

    A., Kleinman, D

    Gómez, C. A., Kleinman, D. V., Pronk, N., Wrenn G., Glenda, L., Ochiai, E., Blakey, C., Johnson, A., Brewer, K. H. (2021). Addressing Health Equity and Social Determinants of Health Through Healthy People 2030. Journal of Public Health Management and Pract ice, 27 (Supplement ...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Haider, A., Jabeen, S., Rankaduwa, W., & Shaheen, F. (2023). The nexus between employment and economic growth: A cross-country analysis. Sustainability, 15(15), 11955. [CrossRef]

    2023

  9. [17]

    A., & Suman, R

    Haleem, A ., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the Role of Digital Technologies in Education: A Review. Sustainable Operations and Computers. [CrossRef]

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hammar, O., & Waldenström, D. (2020). Global Earnings Inequality, 1970 –2018. The Economic Journal, 130(632), 2526–2545. [CrossRef]

    2020

  11. [19]

    Hong, S., & Shell, H. G. (2018). The impact of automation on inequality. Economic Synopses, 2018(29). [CrossRef]

    2018

  12. [20]

    Iversen, V ., Krishna, A., & Sen, K. (2021). Social Mobility in Developing Countries: Concepts, Methods, and Determinants. UNU-WIDER. [CrossRef]

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.