The Effects of Exogenous Oil Supply Shocks on Output and Inflation: Evidence from the G7 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using state-of-the-art methods, this study estimates and compares the effects of exogenous shocks to global oil production on seven major industrialized economies. The main findings are: (1) There is a fair degree of similarity in the real growth responses. An exogenous oil supply disruption typically causes a temporary reduction in real GDP growth that is concentrated in the second year after the shock. (2) Inflation responses are more varied. The median CPI inflation response peaks after three to four quarters. There is clear evidence that exogenous oil supply disruptions need not generate sustained consumer price inflation. Evidence of sustained inflation (as in the case of Germany) therefore must reflect a favorable institutional environment. (3) The evidence of stagflationary responses is strongest for Germany, Japan and Canada, whereas for the US, the UK and Italy there is little or no evidence of stagflationary responses to oil supply shocks. (4) As measured by cumulative inflation and real growth responses, some countries such as Italy, France and Japan have fared well when faced with exogenous oil supply disruptions, whereas others such as Germany have not. (5) A counterfactual historical exercise suggests that the evolution of CPI inflation in the G7 countries would have been similar overall to the actual path even in the absence of exogenous shocks to oil production, consistent with a monetary explanation of inflation. There is no evidence that the 1973/74 and 2002/03 oil supply shocks had a substantial impact on real growth in any G7 country, but for some G7 countries the 1978/79, 1980, and 1990/91 shocks had some impact.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".