MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507565452 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2016.05.23

Global Financial Crisis of 2008, Asymmetric Effects of Exchange Rate Changes, and Stability of the Demand for Money in Japan

2016· article· en· W2507565452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohsen Bahmani‐Óskooee, Jungho Baek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsMonetary economicsFinancial crisisDepreciation (economics)Exchange rateDemand for moneyDemand curveBroad moneyAggregate demandCointegrationInterest rateEconometricsMonetary policyMacroeconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We wonder if Global Financial Crisis of 2008 affected stability of the demand for money in Japan. In testing this hypothesis we deviate from previous studies which either excluded the exchange rate from money demand function in Japan or have not been able to find any significant relation between the exchange rate and the demand for money. While we address stability of the demand for money, we show that failure to find a cointegrating relation or significant effects could be due to assuming a linear model in which exchange rate changes have symmetric effects. Once we consider a nonlinear ARDL approach of Shin et al.'s (2014), we show that not only variables in the money demand are cointegrated but exchange rate changes have asymmetric effects. In the long run, while appreciation of yen has significantly positive effect on the demand for money in Japan, depreciation does not. We also find a stable money demand which was not affected by 2008 financial crisis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207