MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782585121 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n2p35

The Relationship between RMB Exchange Rate and Chinese Trade Balance: Evidence from a Bootstrap Rolling Window Approach

2018· article· en· W2782585121 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junaid Masih, Dongsheng Liu, Javed Pervaiz

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenminbiExchange rateEconomicsBalance of tradeChinaCausationSample (material)Bilateral tradeEffective exchange rateBalance (ability)International economicsEconometricsMonetary economicsPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study inspects the fundamental relationship between the exchange rate and the trade balance in China. The outcome shows that the real effective exchange rate and trade balance in China has no causal relationship. Though, seeing structural changes in two series, we got the result those both long-run and short-run associations using full-sample data are wobbly, which proposes that the full-sample causation tests can’t be relied upon. Then, using time-varying rolling window method to reexamine the dynamic fundamental relationship. The results show that real effective exchange rate has both negative and positive impacts on the trade balance in several sub-periods, and in turn, trade balance has same impact on real effective exchange rate for China. These findings provide no support for the existence of J-curve effect and Marshall-Lerner Condition in case of China. This study shows that it is impossible to resolve China’s trade deficit, depending only on the movement of RMB’s exchange rate.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207