MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127860648

Monetary and fiscal management under a flexible exchange rate regime: the jamaican experience

2000· article· en· W3127860648 on OpenAlexaff
Karl M. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial and economic studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExchange rateEconomicsMonetary policyExchange-rate regimeMonetary economicsFiscal policyInterest rateMoney supplyMacroeconomicsInternational economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper reviews the conduct of fiscal and monetary policy in Jamaica after the move to a floating exchange rate regime. In the first section, aseries of benchmarks is used to see whether there is evidence to support the commonly held view that a flexible exchange rate regime encourages the authorities to be less disciplined in their approach to fiscal and monetary management. It was found that the Jamaican experience provided mixed signals as to the matter of the exchange rate regime and discipline in the conduct of policy. The exchange rate regime seemed to have allowed the monetary authorities to place less emphasis on controlling the money supply and to rely more on the interest rate instrument for stabilization purposes. The second section of the paper, is devoted to an empirical investigation of the potential costs, which might have been imposed on the economy, arising from the monetary policy combination of high interest rates and rapid growth in the supply. It was concluded, that to the extent to which the flexible exchange rate regime allowed the authorities to exercise less restraint on the growth in the money supply, the economy might have incurred higher cost than would have been the case with a fixed exchange rate regime.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial and economic studiesSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207