Systemic Banking Crises, Financial Liberalization and Governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper revisits the relationship between liberalization and systemic banking crisis in light of a more comprehensive measure of financial liberalization and its interaction with various measures of banking governance and institutional quality. We estimate the probability of systemic banking crisis for a sample of 53 countries using multivariate logit models and allowing the determinants of crisis to vary across country groups. The results show that liberalization increases the likelihood of crisis only at early stages of financial reforms and up to certain level, after which, greater liberalization, through more advanced financial reforms, tends to reduce the probability of systemic banking crisis. We also find that stricter banking regulation and supervision, better law and order, government stability, lack of corruption and bureaucratic efficiency generally lead to reduced probability of crisis. However, the magnitude and significance of the beneficial effects of governance largely depend on the degree of liberalization and vary across countries depending on their levels of income and development.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it