MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033958221 · doi:10.30970/meu.2020.43.0.3016

THE EVOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE MONETARY POLICY GROUNDS IN THE LATE XX – EARLY XXI CENTURIES

2020· article· en· W3033958221 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ольга Сергіївна Ватаманюк

Bibliographic record

VenueFORMATION OF MARKET ECONOMY IN UKRAINE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederal fundsExcess reservesOpen market operationMonetary policyQuantitative easingInterest rateInterbank lending marketEconomicsMonetary economicsReserve requirementCredit channelRepurchase agreementBank reservesMarket liquidityFederal Reserve Economic DataBusinessInflation targetingMonetary reformCentral bank

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The full-scale financial crisis in 2008–2009 years caused serious challenges for governments and central banks responsible for general economic policies and especially monetary policy measures. The Federal Reserve System of USA (or Fed) turned out to be among the most successful players who reacted adequately to the crisis. That’s why the evolution of monetary policy approaches in the USA during the last decades is of great theoretical and practical interest. The grounds of monetary policy in the USA can be studied within the analysis of the federal funds market, where the interaction of demand for and supply of reserves determines the federal funds rate. Since 1989 Federal Reserve used federal funds rate targeting, keeping this rate lower than the discount rate. In those times the main monetary tools of Fed were represented by open market operations, required reserves changes and discount rate changes. In January 2003 the role of discount rate had changed substantially. Since then Federal Reserve has kept the discount rate higher than the target for federal funds rate and treats it as a tool for limiting federal funds rate fluctuations and means of liquidity providing. The next important change was dated by October 2008, when the Fed decided to pay interest on reserve balances held by banks. The rate on reserves became an efficient low bound for the federal funds rate. By this Federal Reserve to a great extent copied the channel/corridor system for its basic short-term interest rate used earlier in Canada and some other countries. Under such conditions, the role of reserve requirements declined as the central bank received alternative means for controlling federal funds rate fluctuations. Summarizing the dynamics of monetary tools application by Federal Reserve we can conclude that during the last 30 years the situation has changed dramatically. Only open market operations are still used as a primary tool of monetary policy in the USA, because of their full control by Fed, flexibility, and quickness in implementation. Changes in reserve requirements are no used more. The role of discount rate evolved and together with the newly created tool – the interest rate on reserves paid by Federal Reserve – it is used today to determine the bounds for federal funds rate fluctuations. From the other hand, discount lending enables the Fed to perform its role of lender of last resort efficiently. During the year 2008 as crisis exploded, Federal Reserve used all the potential for interest rate decrease and faced the so-called zero-lower-bound problem. As a result, some nonconventional monetary policy tools such as quantitative easing (massive asset purchase programs) and forward guidance (management of economic agents’ expectations using commitments to future monetary policy actions) were proposed. Such measures turned out to became efficient enough to stabilize the economy of the United States. Key words: monetary policy, Federal Reserve, federal funds market, federal funds rate, open market operations, discount rate, reserve requirements, the rate on reserves.

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)0.002
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 score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFORMATION OF MARKET ECONOMY IN UKRAINESame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207