Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some notable observers of the world economy such as Nobel laureate Robert Mundell and ex-IMF Chief Economist Kenneth Rogoff predict that there will be only one or a few currencies in the world in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, none of these predictions rests on a clearly-defined general theory of international monetary integration (IMI). They may tell us where the future lies but they do not say anything about the necessary and sufficient conditions to get there. This makes it hard to argue with them. This paper remedies this void and helps set the foundations for a fruitful debate about the future of the international monetary system. It does so by combining economic factors (trade, high inflation, financial development, economic cycle symmetry, overseas development assistance) with political ones (peace, domestic stability, regime type, and the depreciation of the symbolic value of the national currency). Some of these factors are well established but others are not. For example, no one seems to have discussed in the context of IMI the strategic nature of a national currency for a government (as a means of financing) when it comes to ensuring its survival when threatened by war and/or domestic conflict. Furthermore, IMI discussions have not taken into account the fact that the influence of certain variables (e.g., trade, inflation, business cycle symmetry, OCA conditions) on the IMI decision is mediated by a state’s regime type. In democracies economic agents’ opinions are more likely to be heard and taken into account than in autocracies. This general theoretical framework then tested econometrically using a large binary time-series cross-section dataset covering the years 1960-2000. This is the first such test of the formation of IMIs to be done to date.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".