Possibility of SADC Monetary Union: Testing for Coordination of Fiscal and Monetary Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is consensus that fiscal and monetary policies should be coordinated into a broader macroeconomic framework for sustainable monetary union.The Brexit scenario, and the debt problems of some European Union members has vindicated re-consideration of premises on which monetary unions are set-up.Southern African Development Community (SADC) had mooted the idea of a monetary union, despite the Rand Common Currency Area not being successful.However, there has been little literature on coordination of fiscal and monetary policies within and across SADC countries.The aim of this study is to examine whether the key macroeconomic policies are coordinated in order to create a spring-board for a sustainable monetary union.The study employed panel data analysis techniques on 14 SADC countries.The Pooled Mean Group (PGM) method was applied to constrain the long-run coefficients to be identical, but allow the short-run coefficients and error variance to differ across groups.The application of PGM technique allows the study to control for heterogeneity across countries and the time dependence that exist on most macroeconomic series.The empirical results show that there is fiscal and monetary policies coordination amongst some SADC countries.However, cross-country differences on key macroeconomic fundamentals such debts, fiscal balances and money supply may hinder the formation of a monetary union and obstruct the economic survival initiatives for trade amongst member states.The paper concludes monetary union may naturally become necessary to facilitate cooperation and trade amongst countries once there exists shared goals.
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 | 0.024 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".