MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2338198739 · doi:10.14288/1.0093988

Determinants of the long term interest rate in Canada

2010· article· en· W2338198739 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Lawrence Mouat

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTerm (time)EconomicsActuarial scienceBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The purpose of this thesis was to develop a model that would demonstrate whether the government of Canada can effect an independent, or partially independent long-term interest rate policy with respect to the United States. The theoretical analysis of the economics resulted in four distinct equations for long-term interest rate determination; two for each of a closed economy model and an open economy model. The first equation for the closed model relates long-term interest rates to the rate of change of money supply, government expenditure and inflation. The second equation replaces government expenditure with unemployment, all other variables remaining the same. The variables of the two equations for the open economy were identical with those of the closed model. However, the open economy had values of the dependent variable which were the difference between the Canadian and U.S. long-term interest rates and values for the independent variables which were the differences between the Canadian and U.S. values of the rate of change of (for the first equation) money supply, inflation and government spending and (for the second equation) money supply, inflation and unemployment. Quarterly data were used over 92 periods from 1953 to 1975 inclusive with money supply and government spending being corrected for inflation. The long-term interest rate were government bond yields of ten years and over; the money supply were the sum of demand deposits plus currency held outside the banks; the government spending were total federal government expenditures and; the inflation rate were the gross national expenditure deflator. The equations were analysed using a routine which combined the Almon lag technique with the Cochrane-Oreutt method of regression. This allowed a selection of the lag length and the degree of the polynomial of the equation. In all of the equations in this paper the lag length is four periods and the degree of the polynomial is two. For the closed economy model the results showed the expected signs (money supply and unemployment negatively related, and inflation and government spending positively related), with few exceptions, the most notable being a negative government expenditure in the first lag period. The values of the coefficients indicated that inflation was the greatest influence on long-term interest rates, money supply and unemployment having a much smaller influence,and government expenditure having almost no affect over the four lag periods. The open economy model results showed the expected signs for the coefficients with a similar exception to the closed model. The value of the coefficients indicated that the inflation differential of the two countries was the greatest influence on the long-term interest rate differential with the money supply differential second, unemployment differential third and government expenditure differential having almost no explanatory power. Money supply differential had four significant lag coefficients indicating a divergence between monetary policy of Canada and the U.S. (whether intended or not). It appears from the results that although the U.S. largely controls Canada's long-term interest rate, Canada has the ability, whether it is used or not, to control part of its long-term interest rate. The differential of Canada and the U.S's rate of change of inflation, money supply and unemployment all influence the level of long-term interest rates. The control of these variables is the key to the government's control over the long-term interest rate.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,276

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,167
Écart entre enseignants0,142 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→Travaux en français237 207→