Economists’ Initial Reactions to the Demise of the Bretton Woods System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international financial system as it is presently configured, including the international use of currencies, has evolved in a manner that no prominent economist predicted during or at the end of the Bretton Woods era (Solomon 1999; Endres 2005). Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system some economists viewed the ensuing international financial arrangements either as fragile or precarious because they did not constitute a genuine, planned IFO. The resulting IFS was considered a ‘non-system’ (e.g. Williamson 1976). By the end of the period under review Robert Mundell (2000, p.339) was still referring to the existence of a non-system; the last quarter of the twentieth century had witnessed, in his view, the wholesale ‘destruction’ of any semblance of an IFS. Much earlier Max Corden (1983 and 1994, p.165) observed that there was indeed an IFS in existence post-1971 but it was ‘unplanned and uncoordinated’. By contrast, another distinguished commentator, James Tobin (1982, pp.115–16) likened the international financial arrangements in the 1970s to ‘monetary anarchy’. Ever since, a plethora of proposals have focused on producing a range of plans deliberately to redesign the international financial ‘architecture’ and avoid or remove supposed endemic features such as financial instability, speculative capital flows, and financial crises; they also discuss various provisions for an international lender of last resort (e.g. Tobin 1978; Bank for International Settlements 1998; Eichengreen 1999a; Fischer 1999a, 2003a and Isard 2005). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".