Econometrics as evidence? Examining the ‘causal’ connections between financial speculation and commodities prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the lasting legacies of the financial crisis of 2008, and the legislative energies that followed from it, is the growing reliance on econometrics as part of the rulemaking process. Financial regulators are increasingly expected to rationalize proposed rules using available econometric techniques, and the courts have vacated several key rules emanating from Dodd-Frank on the grounds of alleged deficiencies in this evidentiary effort. The turn toward such econometric tools is seen as a significant constraint on and challenge to regulators as they endeavor to engage with such essential policy questions as the impact of financial speculation on food security. Yet, outside of the specialized practitioner community, very little is known about these techniques. This article examines one such econometric test, Granger causality, and its role in a pivotal Dodd-Frank rulemaking. Through an examination of the test for Granger causality and its attempts to distill the causal connections between financial speculation and commodities prices, the article argues that econometrics is a blunt but useful tool, limited in its ability to provide decisive insights into commodities markets and yet yielding useful returns for those who are able to wield it.
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 | 0.036 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".