MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197158010 · doi:10.29145/eer/41/06

Causality between Macroeconomic Indicators and Stock Market: An Econometric Analysis

2021· article· en· W3197158010 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Imad ud Din Akbar, Abdul Rauf Butt, Ali Farhan Chaudhry

Bibliographic record

VenueEmpirical Economic Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket capitalizationEconomicsStock marketGranger causalityStock exchangeCausality (physics)Monetary economicsStock (firearms)Capital marketEmerging marketsEconomic indicatorStock market bubbleCapitalizationMacroeconomicsFinancial economicsEconometricsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We attempt to examine the causality between economic growth and stock market performance of Pakistan for the years 1992M01-2012M12. For this purpose, the test devised by Granger (1988) has been employed. The results reveal a bi-directional causality between economic growth and stock market performance of Pakistan proxied by Karachi Stock Exchange capitalization (KSECAP). Once this bidirectional causality is established, a system of simultaneous equations has been specified and estimated by 2SLS to find the impact of economic growth and selected macroeconomic indicators on the stock market of Pakistan. The estimated results lead to the conclusion that economic growth affects the stock market of Pakistan and vice versa. The implications of the study are of paramount importance, especially for the emerging economies. Hence, bearing in mind the role of macroeconomic indicators in the performance of stock market a better policy can be formulated to enhance the growth of capital markets that in turn will increase the economic growth of emerging economies such as Pakistan and vice versa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmpirical Economic ReviewSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207