Multicointegration, Sustainability of Fiscal Practices and the Role of Fiscal Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the multicointegration methodology first presented in Granger and Lee (1989, 1990) and further developed by Engsted, Gonzalo and Haldrup (1997) and Haldrup (1998) we develop criteria for testing sustainability of the fiscal budgeting process. We then apply this criteria to the fiscal systems of fifteen industrialized countries. Finland, Norway, the U.K. and Switzerland display government budgeting behavior consistent with sustainable fiscal practices. Evidence indicates that the budgeting practices of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the U.S. are inconsistent with practices that are sustainable. The findings suggest that over the sample period the governments of these last eleven countries may have been trying to exploit low rates of interest relative to growth or execute a Ponzi scheme. However, should growth decline, sustainability of the fiscal processes may become problematic necessitating structural adjustments. The evidence further suggests that reforming budgetary institutions in such a manner as to make them stronger, more hierarchical and transparent will mitigate the pressures to pursue fiscal profligacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".