The potential consequences of alternative exchange rate regimes: A study of three candidate regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the macroeconomic consequences of selecting alternative exchange rate regimes of countries in three regions. In particular, it studies whether Austria, the Netherlands, Canada and New Zealand made the right monetary regime choices between 1970 and 2000. We focus on the role of asymmetric shocks as a core determinant for the evaluation of various monetary regimes by studying the impact of a hard peg, a full monetary union, or floating exchange rates (with or without inflation targeting) on selected macroeconomic variables. Estimates of structural VARs are used to ascertain if the countries under review meet the essential ingredients of an Optimum Currency Area (OCA) and thus are candidates for a monetary union. Counterfactual experiments help to study economic outcomes had these countries pursued alternative monetary strategies. We conclude that a floating regime with inflation targeting is best for Canada, a monetary union with Australia is the best course of action for New Zealand, and monetary union is the appropriate choice for the Netherlands while there are reasons to believe that Austria might have been better off with a floating regime, at least for a time. We also find that good monetary policy is not confined to any particular exchange rate regime and that political and institutional factors weigh heavily in this decision. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".