MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523232684

Has the US Economy Exhibited Less Uncertainty during the Greenspan Era

2010· article· en· W1523232684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher N. Annala, Shuo Chen, Anthony Yanxiang Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Legal Ethical and Regulatory Issues · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policyEconomicsVolatility (finance)Keynesian economicsInflation (cosmology)Inflation targetingMonetary economicsMoney supplyInterest rateCentral bankEconomyMacroeconomicsFinancial economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION It is well recognized that Allan Greenspan was among the best Chairman in the history of central banks, guiding the U.S. economy through a prolonged period of economic growth and stability, throughout the 1980s and 1990s. However, it is difficult to measure a Federal Reserve Chairman's or a central bank's performance, and to compare central banks' performance, in part because economies exhibit different growth rates, inflation and interest rates at different stages of development, and each economy has its own particular natural, cultural, and political conditions and environments, and the differences may sometimes dominate the role of a central bank. There are numerous studies comparing the conduct and performance of monetary policies of the Volcker-Greenspan period to those of the pre-Volcker period (Clarida, Gali & Gertler, 2000; Mankiw, 2002; Gamber & Hakes, 2006; Dennis, 2004; Fair, 2007). The researchers find that monetary policies during the Volcker-Greenspan period have been more efficient and more reactive to changes in expected inflation. There are several cross-country empirical studies on relationship between policy efficiency and macroeconomic performance (Cecchetti & Krause, 2001; Cecchetti, Flores-Lagunes & Krause, 2004). Good conduct of monetary policy or simply reduced supply shocks contribute to good macroeconomic performance. Cecchetti, Flores-Lagunes, and Krause (2004) find that more efficient policy explains 80% of the improvement in macroeconomic performance in 20 out of 21 countries they study. Ahmed, Levin, and Wilson (2004) and Kahn, McConnell, and Perez-Quiros (2002) discuss the sources of reduced output volatility and those of reduced price volatility, both agree that policy is the likely source of stability in inflation. Blanchard and Simon (2001) identify a decline in output volatility since the 1950s and trace to several proximate causes. They find little evidence that the absence of large shocks is the reason of the decline in output volatility. In this study, we compare the macroeconomic performance in three different countries. Our purpose of this study is to use simple, straightforward calculations to show whether the American people enjoyed better economic conditions in the Greenspan era than did people in Canada and in the United Kingdom, since the Fed's and the other two central banks' policies may have played an important role in the performance of the economy. We do not attempt to trace the causes of the macroeconomic performances in this study since there is already a broad agreement on the importance of monetary policy. We examine and compare relative measures, such as the ratios of inflation to unemployment, inflation to GDP growth, employment and interest rate to GDP growth. We select Canada and the United Kingdom for comparison because these two countries are the most similar to the United States in terms of culture, political system, and stage of economic development. Is the difference in performances of the three countries caused by their different policy goals? Canada and United Kingdom adopted inflation targets in 1991 and 1992, respectively, while the United States does not have formal inflation targets. Dueker and Fischer (2006) find little evidence that inflation-targeting monetary policies outperform given the same circumstances. This is the case when they compare the inflation performances of Canada and the United States. The extensive survey of empirical studies by Dueker and Fischer (2006) provide similar conclusions. Cecchetti and Ehrmann (2002) analyze 23 countries in the pre EMU period and find that inflation targets did not cause difference in the patterns of inflation and output volatilities. A common explanation for this is that the successful non-inflation targeters' practices converge to those of inflation targeters (Bernanke et al., 1999; Mishkin, 2002). According the Federal Reserve's mission statement, its first duty is Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Legal Ethical and Regulatory IssuesSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207