Alternative exchange rate arrangements and effective demand: an important missing analysis in the debate over greater North American monetary integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the wide swings in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar over the past decade, some would like to see a return to a fixed exchange rate system in North America. In reviewing the debate between supporters of pegged versus floating rates, there is little analysis found of the implications that these alternative currency arrangements could have on effective demand along Keynesian lines. Interestingly, not only is this latter issue completely ignored, as among neoclassical economists, but even among Post Keynesian economists, there is little focused analysis of the implications of the choice of exchange rate regime on domestic effective demand. After a brief theoretical analysis of the role that floating versus pegged exchange rates would have on the ability of a domestic economy to amortize negative international shocks, the paper suggests that a floating rate would generate less recessionary pressures domestically than would a pegged exchange rate. Reviewing the economic performance in terms of gross domestic product per capita growth of some 34 countries for the post-Bretton Woods period, from 1973-97, that had experimented with both pegged and non-pegged arrangements, it was found that the latter fared better than the former.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".