Food Price Bubbles and Government Intervention: Is China Different?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade has witnessed different price trajectories in the international and Chinese agricultural commodity markets. This paper compares and contrasts these dynamic patterns between markets from the perspective of price bubbles. A newly developed right‐tailed unit root testing procedure is applied to detect price bubbles in the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and Chinese agricultural futures market during the period 2005–14. Results show that Chinese markets experienced less prominent speculative bubbles than the international markets for its high self‐sufficiency commodities (wheat and corn), but not for low self‐sufficiency commodities (soybean). The difference in price behavior is attributed to differences in market intelligence, and to Chinese agricultural policies related to trade as well as domestic government policies. Besides, it discusses challenges to the sustainability of the stable price trajectory in Chinese markets. Au cours de la dernière décennie, les prix des produits agricoles sur les marchés chinois et international ont suivi des trajectoires variées. Dans le présent article, nous comparons les divers marchés sur le plan des bulles de prix des produits agricoles. Nous avons utilisé un nouveau test de racine unitaire qui exploite la queue de droite de la distribution de la statistique pour déceler les bulles de prix des produits agricoles sur le Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) et sur les marchés à terme chinois au cours de la période 2005–14. Les résultats de notre étude montrent que les marchés chinois ont connu des bulles spéculatives moins prononcées que les marchés internationaux dans le cas des produits agricoles pour lesquels l'autosuffisance de la Chine est très élevée (le blé et le maïs), par rapport aux produits pour lesquels l'autosuffisance est faible (le soja). La différence sur le plan du comportement des prix est attribuable aux différences sur le plan de l'information commerciale ainsi qu'aux politiques agricoles chinoises en matière de commerce et à la politique intérieure du pays. Nous avons également examiné les défis par rapport à la durabilité d'une trajectoire de prix stables sur les marchés chinois.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".