Comparative Analysis of the Implementation of the Inflation Targeting Monetary Strategy in Canada and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the 1990s there have been major changes in the way monetary policy is conducted. Since other monetary strategies did not result in the desired outcome, the first concept of inflation targeting was presented in New Zealand (1990), then in Canada (1991), England (1992), Sweden and Finland (1993), Australia and Spain (1994), Israel, Chile, Brasil, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Serbia and other countries. Thus, the application of this monetary regime has spread from economically developed to developing countries. This article examines the adoption, the formal framework for inflation targeting and the experience of the two countries that were leaders in the adoption of this modern strategy, New Zealand and Canada. At the time of the announcement of the inflation targets, inflation in both countries was around 6%. However, there are differences regarding the time frame. So, in New Zealand in a shorter period of time, credibility should have been achieved regarding the imbalance of monetary and fiscal policy. While, on the other hand, a longer time frame is envisaged for the Central Bank of Canada regarding achieving greater flexibility to mitigate price shocks. After all the above, it can be concluded that both observed countries (Canada and New Zealand) during the period 2008-2017, achieved positive effects from inflation targeting. In this sense inflation rates in the target range of 1-3% were achieved, except for a few years after the financial crisis (2008-2011), but after certain revisions of the formal framework, both countries successfully fought for greater economic growth and financial stability. The inflation targeting regime proved to be very successful in achieving the set targets, so both Central Banks continued to constantly update the formal and informal inflation targeting frameworks, in order to continuously achieve the expected effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".