A SURVEY OF THE INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE AND LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT UNCONVENTIONAL MONETARY POLICIES: IS A ‘NEW NORMAL’ IN OUR FUTURE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the effectiveness of unconventional monetary policies (UMP). It considers whether these policies have been successful and where their effects remain uncertain. We survey both the domestic financial market and macro‐economic effects of UMP in the economies where these policies were introduced and their international spillover effects. The paper considers the impact of a wide range of UMP rather than the effects of specific policy instruments. We also provide a retrospective on the important case of Japan beginning in the late1990s and ask whether the Eurozone's experience with UMP is substantively different given its structure of policymaking. Finally, we ask: if the ‘old normal’ is not in our future, should the ‘new normal’ in monetary policy routinely include what we now refer to as UMP? We conclude that UMP can prevent economic collapse but are not designed to promote stronger long‐term economic growth. Apart from new communication strategies, the use of UMP under normal circumstances does not appear to be a sound monetary policy strategy. Failure to learn this lesson might also enable future policy makers to ask or expect too much from their central banks.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".