MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125710069

Securing Monetary and Financial Stability: Why Canada Needs a Macroprudential Policy Framework

2015· article· en· W3125710069 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policySystemic riskInflation (cosmology)EconomicsMacroprudential regulationGovernment (linguistics)Financial crisisInflation targetingPrice of stabilityDebtFinancial stabilityMonetary economicsFinancial systemFinanceBusinessMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s inflation-target agreement between the government and the Bank of Canada is up for renewal by 31 December 2016. In the aftermath of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, one of the critical issues for consideration is the integration of price and financial stability in the conduct of policy. This Commentary addresses the importance for the conduct of monetary policy of having a separate coherent framework for macroprudential policy – designed to prevent the build-up of systemic, or system-wide, financial risks. A key lesson of the financial crisis was the insufficient attention being paid to these risks and their consequences for the economy. The importance of this issue can be seen in two ways. The first relates to the interactions between monetary and macroprudential policy tools in light of concerns about rising levels of household debt. At various times, there will be situations when only one policy tool is needed, when both policies need to be used in the same direction, or when the two policies need to work in opposite directions. The second relates to the Bank’s current “risk management approach” to monetary policy. In the absence of a government framework for the active use of macroprudential tools, this approach implies that monetary policy becomes a more important line of defence against systemic risks than it needs to be, with the risk of sub-optimal monetary policy outcomes. Our conclusions are threefold: • Canada’s 2 percent inflation target and policy framework has served the economy well, most importantly in anchoring inflation expectations; • over the past two years, Canadian monetary policy would have been better placed to combat low inflation and excess capacity had macroprudential policies been openly geared to reducing the systemic risks associated with rising household indebtedness and housing prices; and • drawing on best practices, the government needs to elevate macroprudential policies by establishing clear objectives, tools and lines of responsibility and accountability. The payoff for Canadians cannot be overstated: greater assurance of both financial stability, as a result of assigned responsibility for macroprudential policy, and monetary stability, as a result of the Bank of Canada’s continued primary focus on inflation and output stabilization.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · 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