MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3199687706 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14090449

Does the Money Multiplier Hold in Pacific Island Countries? The Case of Papua New Guinea

2021· article· en· W3199687706 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Ofoi, Parmendra Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsLoanable fundsBroad moneyNew guineaBank rateInterest rateMonetary economicsMonetary policyMonetary baseOrdinary least squaresEconometricsCentral bank

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first study to systematically assess the significance of the standard money multiplier vis-à-vis the bank credit transmission channel in the case of Pacific Island Economies, focusing on Papua New Guinea. The vector autoregressive model comprising six variables—interest rate, inflation rate, loans, deposits, reserve money, and real output—was estimated using quarterly data for the period 1980q1 to 2017q4. We applied the ordinary least squares (OLS) method to estimate the system of vector autoregressions (VARs). The estimation was conducted for the full and sub-sample periods. From the impulse response functions generated, the results suggest that the money multiplier does not hold and that the transmission to bank credit appears weak. It seems that the ability of the Central Bank to make loanable funds available through its conduct of monetary policy may not enhance private sector credit. On the other hand, there appears to be a significant and positive association between bank deposits and credit, suggesting that bank deposits and credit are endogenous and demand driven.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→French-language works237,207→