MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124190933

Borders and Nominal Exchange Rates in Risk-Sharing

2013· preprint· en· W3124190933 on OpenAlexaff
Michael B. Devereux, Viktoria Hnatkovska

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Policies and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepreciation (economics)Exchange rateEconomicsConsumption (sociology)EconometricsMonetary economicsMicroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models of risk-sharing predict that relative consumption growth rates across locations should be positively related to real exchange rate growth rates across the same areas. We investigate this hypothesis using a new multi-country and multi-regional data set. Within countries, we find evidence for risk-sharing: episodes of high relative regional consumption growth are associated with regional real exchange rate depreciation. Across countries however, the association is reversed: relative consumption and real exchange rates are negatively correlated. We define this reversal as a border effect and show that it accounts for 53 percent of the deviations from full risk-sharing. Since crossborder real exchange rates involve different currencies, it is natural to ask how much of the border effect is accounted for by movements in exchange rates? We find that over one-third of the border effect is due to nominal exchange rate fluctuations. We develop a simple open economy model that is consistent with the importance of nominal exchange rate variability in accounting for deviations from cross-country risk-sharing.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEconomic Policies and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207