The Domestic Politics of Euro Adoption in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following their accession to the European Union (EU) on May 1st, 2004, ten New Member States (NMS), and two more that joined in 2007, are expected to fulfill the Maastricht convergence criteria and enter the last stage of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in due course thereby adopting the euro. However, nothing in the Treaty on European Union specifies a time frame for joining the euro area. Some countries have already joined; the others have not. Slovenia joined in 2007, Cyprus and Malta in 2008 and Slovakia in 2009. The other eight NMS have not yet adopted the euro. Some have made serious attempts; others are far removed from having made the necessary preparations to be ready to join. How can we explain the difference in speed of euro adoption? A cost benefit-analysis indicating positive economic effects of euro adoption and the existence of shared economic values and beliefs among central bankers are insufficient to bring about speedy euro adoption. This paper develops a domestic politics approach to analyze the euro adoption process and applies it to three case studies: the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it