Commodity prices and exchange rates: evidence from commodity-dependent developed and emerging economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In this paper the authors examine evidence on exchange rate predictability through commodity prices for a set of countries categorized as commodity import- and export-dependent developed and emerging countries. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform in-sample and out-of-sample forecasting analysis. The commodity prices are modeled to predict the exchange rate and to analyze whether this commodity price model can perform better than the random walk model (RWM) or not. These two models are compared and evaluated in terms of exchange rate forecasting abilities based on mean squared forecast error and Theil inequality coefficient. Findings The authors find that primary commodity prices better predict exchange rates in almost two-thirds of export-dependent developed countries. In contrast, the RWM shows superior performance in the majority of export-dependent emerging, import-dependent emerging and developed countries. Originality/value Previous studies examined the exchange rate of commodity export-dependent developed countries mainly. This study examines both developed and emerging countries and finds for which one the changes in prices of export commodities (in case of commodity export-dependent country) or prices of major importing commodities (in case of import-dependent countries) can significantly predict the exchange rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".