L’efficacité de la politique budgétaire en économie ouverte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate between keynesians and monetarists on the effectiveness of fiscal policy has been going for quite a long time, and all efforts to resolve it have met with little success. While everyone would agree that the controversy can only be resolved on empirical grounds, there is no agreement among the two schools as to what constitutes an appropriate test of their respective theories. In this paper, a small macroeconomic model has been developed which incorporates the major elements of the keynesian-monetarist debate and which can produce either keynesian or monetarist results, depending upon the values taken by the particular sets of coefficients. The model has not been estimated and is not designed, therefore, to evaluate the actual impact of fiscal policy measures in Canada. Rather the coefficients of the model have been either borrowed from existing models or set a priori, in order to identify those aspects or parameters of the model which are most important in determining the effectiveness of fiscal policy. Simulations performed with the model indicate a number of factors that are critical in producing either Keynesian or monetarist results. These are: 1) the expected—real—interest elasticity of private real investment; 2) the substitutability between government bonds, money and other assets; 3) the specification of wage behaviour and the degree of influence of price expectations; 4) the sensitivity of nominal interest rates to changes in the inflationary expectations; 5) the extent to which future taxes are anticipated by consumers and 6) the mechanism for determining the price of exports.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".