MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094748775 · doi:10.1111/aepr.12342

The Welfare Implications of Massive Money Injection: The Japanese Experience from 2013 to 2020

2021· article· en· W3094748775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tsutomu Watanabe

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Economic Policy Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)WelfareMonetary economicsFriedman ruleDemand for moneyGross domestic productOpportunity costEndogenous moneyMarginal utilityDemand depositMonetary policyMacroeconomicsMicroeconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present paper derives a money demand function that explicitly takes the costs of storing money into account. This function is then used to examine the consequences of the large‐scale money injection conducted by the Bank of Japan since April 2013. The main findings are as follows. First, the opportunity cost of holding money calculated using 1‐year government bond yields has been negative since the fourth quarter of 2014 and most recently (2020:Q2) was −0.2%. Second, the marginal cost of storing money, which was 0.3% in the most recent quarter, exceeds the marginal utility of money, which was 0.1%. Third, the optimal quantity of money, measured by the ratio of M1 to nominal gross domestic product, is 1.2. In contrast, the actual money‐income ratio in the most recent quarter was 1.8. The welfare loss relative to the maximum welfare obtained under the optimal quantity of money in the most recent quarter was 0.2% of nominal gross domestic product. The findings imply that the Bank of Japan needs to reduce M1 by more than 30%, for example through measures that impose a penalty on holding money.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Economic Policy ReviewSame topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207