Risking the Stability of EMU: the Asymmetric Application of the Stability and Growth Pact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiscal profligacy poses a high risk to the credibility of Europe common monetary policy and its ultimate objective of price stability. Unfortunately, the aim of preventing fiscally responsible states from being penalized by those with lax budgetary policies via inflationary pressures and interest rates is jeopardized as members breach the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Moreover, there are major institutional inconsistencies in how states are treated under the current framework as is exemplified by the November 2003 ECONFIN crisis. What is witnessed is an antagonistic relationship between the programmatic and operational dimensions of monetary governance. Does the fact that half the members who have adopted the euro have also breached its rules signal that surveillance as regulation is being displaced as a mode of governance? It calls for a re-imaged spatial-temporal explanation of governance to adequately capture the political economy of EMU. At the core of EMU management are risk and uncertainty based modes of governing. Employing a governmentality approach, I argue that the audit is one prominent style of processing and institutionalizing risk as an aggregate future of monetary activity. By altering the administration and objects of risk governance the audit is perceived as reducing the susceptibility to failure. Hence, it has a performative function that extends beyond simply measuring deficit or debt to GDP performance and acts as a social and institutional process structuring a homogenous set of fiscal practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".