‘Flowers and criticism’: The political economy of the renminbi debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Since 2003 China has faced increasing pressure, especially from the US and Japan, to revalue the renminbi. In July 2005 China responded by announcing a small revaluation and a switch from a dollar peg to a tightly managed float against a currency basket. The mainstream economic debate, which we briefly review, has focused on whether, and to what extent, the renminbi is undervalued. From a political economy perspective, however, the more interesting question is why China has been so reluctant to significantly revalue the renminbi especially since it was keen to prove itself a ‘responsible member of the international community’ by not devaluing in the wake of the Asian financial crisis in 1997–1998. We argue that this can be explained by three factors. These are, firstly, the diminished ability of China's policy-makers to use the export tax rebate policy to mitigate the effects of a revaluation. Secondly, there are differences in the regional context between the two time periods. Thirdly, in the international game of ‘problem assignment’, China refuses to accept that the US trade deficit is its ‘problem’.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".