The Illusion of Inflation Targeting: Have Central Banks Figured Out What They Are Actually Doing Since the Global Financial Crisis? An Alternative to the Mainstream Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current discussions over the behavior of central banks show that more and more political leaders are demanding that the monetary authorities abandon a single-goal mandate of solely combating inflation. Many are considering a multi-goal commitment that would include not only concern with inflation, as had been the case before the global financial crisis. Central banks should also give due consideration to the problem of unemployment, income distribution and macro-prudential risks in their interest-rate setting. By looking at the experience of fourteen inflation-targeting countries since the global financial crisis, empirical evidence suggests that central banks have shifted significantly their behavior and have shown a high degree of pragmatism in dealing with the aftermath of the financial crisis, by loosening their focus on inflation. Using an alternative post-Keynesian analytical framework, the article then proceeds with an analysis of how central banks can effectively achieve a multi-goal commitment that would include full employment and a more equitable distribution of income in their pursuit of monetary policy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".