On the Feasibility of Monetary Union: Does It Make Sense to Look for Shocks Symmetry across Countries When None of the Countries Constitutes an Optimum Currency Area?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usually, a monetary union is not considered feasible between countries if the correlations of shocks are positive but weak. This may not be so if the country with the larger output gap converges to full-employment equilibrium faster than the country with the smaller gap. We argue that common monetary policy can be destabilizing when countries’ responses to non-monetary shocks are perfectly symmetric with a correlation of 1 but exhibit differing investment sensitivities to the real interest rate. We use Canada, Mexico and the United States to test the feasibility of a monetary union by documenting whether: 1) gross investments in Canada and Mexico are equally responsive to the real fund rate, and 2) Canada’s and Mexico’s output growth and inflation respond differently to US monetary policy shocks and oil price shocks. This approach implicitly dictates whether the shocks themselves are symmetric or asymmetric. Using quarterly data and SVAR methodology, we conducted two layers of analysis. We estimated SVARs for the periods 1970–2008, 1970–1990 and 1991–2008 to find that a monetary union is feasible between Canada and the US for the first two sample periods. For Canada and Mexico, we find similar responses of output growth to US monetary policy shocks. We conducted further robustness tests by estimating two identified VARs with common US variables and oil prices for Canada and Mexico to assess commonality in responses to shocks with the US. These results affirm that a monetary union is also feasible between Canada and the US.
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 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".