Do central banks respond to exchange rate movements? A Markov-switching structural investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do central banks respond to exchange rate movements? According to Lubik and Schorfheide (2007) who estimate structural general equilibrium models with monetary policy rules, the answer is "Yes, some do". However, their analysis is based on a sample with multiple regime changes, which may bias the results. We revisit their original question using a Markov switching set up which explicitly allows for parameter changes. Fitting the data from four small open economies to the model, we find that the size of policy responses, and the volatility of structural shocks, have not stayed constant during the sample period (1982-2011). In particular, central banks in Sweden and the UK switched from a high response to the exchange rate in the 1980s and early 1990s, to a low response some time after inflation targeting was implemented. Canada also observed a regime change, but the decline in the exchange rate response was small relative to the increase in the response to inflation and output. Norway, on the other hand, did not observe a shift in the policy response over time, as the central bank has stayed in a regime of high exchange rate response prior and post implementing inflation targeting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".