International Business Cycles: What Are the Facts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern business cycle theory involves developing models that explain stylized facts. For this strategy to be successful, these facts should be well established. In this paper, we focus on the stylized facts of international business cycles. We use the generalized method of moments and quarterly data from nineteen industrialized countries to estimate pairwise cross-country and within-country correlations of macroeconomic aggregates. We calculate standard errors of the statistics for our unique panel of data and test hypotheses about the relative sizes of these correlations. We find a lower cross-country correlation of all aggregates and especially of consumption than in previous studies. The cross-country correlations of consumption, output and Solow residuals are not significantly different from one another over the whole sample, but there are significant differences in the post-1973 subsample. La théorie moderne du cycle passe par le développement de modèles qui expliquent des faits stylisés. Pour que cette stratégie puisse réussir, ces faits doivent être bien établis. Dans ce papier, nous nous concentrons sur les faits stylisés relatifs aux cycles internationaux. Nous utilisons la méthode des moments généralisés sur des données trimestrielles de 19 pays pour estimer des corrélations entre pays et entre agrégats macroéconomiques. Nous calculons des écarts-types pour les statistiques pour cette unique banque de données et testons des hypothèses concernant les tailles relatives des corrélations. Nous trouvons des corrélations entre pays plus faibles que rapportées précédemment, en particulier pour la consommation. Les corrélations croisées de la consommation, du PIB et des résidus de Solow ne sont pas significativement différentes entre elles sur l'ensemble de l'échantillon, mais il y a des différences significatives dans un sous-échantillon débutant en 1973.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".