Bibliographic record
Abstract
2007년 발생한 세계금융위기는 1980년대 이후 지배적 담론－ 또는 정통적 해석 －으로 간주되고 있는 워싱턴 합의의 실효성과 정당성에 대한 근본적인 의문을 제기하였다. 이런 맥락에서 세계금융통화질서를 규율해온 국제통화기금(IMF)과 세계은행은 거시경제 안정화 정책과 구조개혁 정책을 근본적으로 재검토하고 있다. 이러한 정책 변화는 1980년 이후 워싱턴 합의에 기반을 둔 국제정책 공조에도 부정적인 영향을 주고 있다. 위기 이후 국제정책공조 논의에서 가장 심각한 쟁점들 중의 하나는 재정정책이다. 위기 직후부터 IMF는 워싱턴 합의에서 강조했던 긴축정책 대신에 케인즈주의적 재정부양책을 회원국들에게 권고하였다. 이에 의거하여 대부분의 G-20 회원국들은 경기진작을 위해 재정 부양책을 적극적으로 활용하였다. 이러한 정책전환은 Its Mostly Fiscal의 약칭으로 불렸던 위기 이전의 입장에 비해서는 상당한 변화로 평가될 수 있다. 그러나 어느 정도 위기를 극복한 2010년 캐나다 정상회담 이후 의견 차이가 본격화되었다. 미국, 일본 및 IMF는 경기가 완전히 회복될 때까지 재정정책을 팽창적으로 유지해야 한다고 주장하는 반면, 영국과 독일은 재정적자를 축소하기 위해 긴축정책을 선제적으로 추진하고 있다. 주요 경제대국들 사이의 깊은 의견 차이는 IMF의 정책전환을 완전하지도 않으며 불가역적인 것도 아니며 위기 이후 IMF의 공조 역할도 현재까지는 완전히 성공적이지 않다는 사실을 의미한다.\n\nThe global financial crisis of 2007 poses a fundamental question as to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Washington consensus, which has been the dominant discourse or legitimate interpretation of economic policy since the 1980s. Recently the IMF and World Bank - both of which has disciplined the global financial and monetary order - are rethinking their macroeconomic stabilization and structural reform policy in a radical way. This policy shift has a negative impact on international policy coordination based on the Consensus. One of the most controversial issues in the discussion of post-crisis coordination is fiscal policy. Just after the outbreak of the crisis, the IMF has recommended its members Keynesian fiscal stimulus rather than austerity. Considering its nickname (Its Mostly Fiscal), this is a significant breakaway from the pre-crisis policy stance. Following the recommendation, most G-20 countries expansionary fiscal policy to boost economic growth. At the Toronto summit in 2010 when many countries started to recover from the crisis, the near-consensus over fiscal stimulus was challenged. The US, Japan, and the IMF urged to maintain the policy until full recovery, while the UK and Germany wanted to return to austerity to reduce fiscal deficits. The profound disagreements among major economies imply that IMF's policy shift is neither complete nor irreversible at least for the time being and that the IMFs post-crisis coordination role is so far not entirely successful.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".