Securing Monetary and Financial Stability: Why Canada Needs a Macroprudential Policy Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".