MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340208061 · doi:10.22495/jgr_v3_i4_c2_p1

Effectiveness of the national credit act of South Africa in reducing household debt: a Johansen cointegration and VECM analysis

2014· article· en· W2340208061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alfred Bimha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Governance and Regulation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationQuarter (Canadian coin)DebtHousehold debtEconomicsError correction modelDebt service coverage ratioGranger causalityMonetary economicsFinanceExternal debtEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise in unsecured lending has cast doubt on the effectiveness of the National Credit Act in South Africa. Reckless lending was seen rising since 2006 and plateauing in 2009. Could this be evidence of the effectiveness of the National Credit Act (NCA) curbing reckless lending household debts? This study embarks on finding whether reckless lending was present in the Pre-NCA period running from 1994 to the end of 2nd quarter of 2007 when the NCA was enacted. Further in this study, the effectiveness of NCA in curbing reckless lending in the Post-NCA period starting from the 3rd quarter of 2007 to the 2nd quarter of 2014. Using the Johansen Cointegration analysis and Vector Error Correction Model, long run and short run Granger causality tests are done with the household debt as a dependent and debt service coverage ratio, household debt to disposable income ratio and disposable income as independents. The results from the tests done provide convincing evidence that reckless lending indeed was present in the Pre-NCA period and there is evidence showing the curbing of reckless lending in the Post-NCA period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Governance and RegulationSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207