MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914085053 · doi:10.3390/jrfm12010035

The Importance of the Financial Derivatives Markets to Economic Development in the World’s Four Major Economies

2019· article· en· W2914085053 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Duc Hong Vo, Anh The Vo, Ha Dao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNingbo University
KeywordsEconomicsDerivatives marketVolatility (finance)Ordinary least squaresShort runChinaCointegrationGranger causalityError correction modelFinancial marketMonetary economicsEconometricsFinancial economicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past three decades, China and India have attained economic power close to that of Japan and the U.S. During this period, the importance of the derivatives market within the financial market has been widely recognized. However, little supporting evidence is available on its economic effects. This paper investigates the dynamic relationship between the derivatives markets and economic development in these four large economies, which we consider together as the CIJU (China, India, Japan, and the U.S.) group. We use a Granger-causality test in the framework of a vector error correction model (VECM) to examine this causal and dynamic relation with data for the period 1998Q1 to 2017Q4. Derivative markets are found to positively contribute to economic development in the short run in the U.S., Japan, and India, but the effect disappears in the long run. In China, the derivatives market has a negative effect on economic development in the short run. However, in the long run, we observe a positive effect from the derivatives market on economic development based on two long-run estimation techniques, namely, dynamic ordinary least squares and fully modified ordinary least squares. Also, the development of derivative markets causes growth volatility in India, both in the short run and long run.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations62
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207