Examines economic freedom's impact on educational performance using AI, revealing key insights for policy discussions.
Studies explaining the variation in educational outcomes across countries, when based on “black box” models that provide high accuracy but struggle to present the decision-making mechanism transparently, carry the risk of producing limited interpretations for policy discussions. This study examines the system-level relational patterns through which the subcomponents of the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom distinguish country-average low–medium–high PISA performance profiles in mathematics, reading, and science, and interprets these patterns using machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). The analysis draws on approximately twenty years of nominal country-year records covering 76 countries. The study design proceeds through a classification approach, treating country performance as low–medium–high profiles; thus, model outputs are presented on an interpretable reference plane for cross-country comparisons. The findings indicate that the models demonstrate consistent generalization ability in distinguishing performance profiles and that the XAI layer produces explanations that make the model’s reasoning visible in a verifiable manner. The explanation results indicate that components representing institutional trust (such as government integrity and property rights) produce strong, recurring signals alongside higher performance profiles in all three areas; while components such as public expenditure and tax burden can emerge as balancing/suppressing signals in some scenarios. Rather than offering causal policy implications, these findings transparently reveal the structural areas that stand out in distinguishing performance profiles in cross-country comparisons, thus providing an explainable, replicable evidence base for comparative analysis and further research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: