Is the Fisher effect asymmetric? Cointegration analysis and expectations measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using U.S. post‐war data, we investigate whether the interest rate response to inflation known as the Fisher effect could be asymmetric. The asymmetry considered is that the long‐run change in the interest rate is larger when inflation rises than when it falls. The possibility follows from behavioural hypotheses about the relationship of inflation expectations to actual inflation. Using an asymmetric cointegration approach, we find asymmetric cointegration in the Fisher effect for the post‐war period through 1979, but not subsequently. We then find that starting in 1980, a breakdown developed in the relationship between inflation expectations from surveys and actual recent inflation rates, a breakdown not accounted for by asymmetry. If the survey results approximate true expectations, then econometric testing using actual recent inflation to compute expected inflation will suffer from mismeasurement, which could explain the finding of no cointegrating Fisher effect post‐1979. The paper accounts for breakpoints and uses bootstrapping to conservatively estimate statistical significance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".