Monetary Power and Political Autonomy: Exchange Rate Policymaking in Follower States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international monetary power of leading states may be limited by countervailing policies of follower states. At least at the core of the contemporary system and in the macroeconomic arena, follower states appear able to construct and maintain effective political buffers. Their principal objective is not to wield external influence, but to maximize their political autonomy, their room for manoeuvre. They seek to benefit as much as possible from their access to the markets of leading states, but they also seek ways to buffer the impact of those markets on their own. Exchange rate policies comprise key buffers, and, despite confronting similar external circumstances, diverse approaches continue to be pursued by follower states. Some insist on rigidly anchoring their currencies to powerful neighbours, while others prefer to let their exchange rates float. To examine the reasons for this diversity in similarly situated follower states, brief case histories of post-1945 exchange-rate policymaking in Canada and Austria are presented and compared. Longstanding distinctions in the management of internal markets are found to match central tendencies in external monetary policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".