MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319773767 · doi:10.1017/s136510052200075x

IMF lending in sovereign default

2023· article· en· W4319773767 on OpenAlex
Georgios Stefanidis

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacroeconomic Dynamics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationDefaultSovereign defaultDebtForgivenessEconomicsMonetary economicsCreditorSovereigntyInternational economicsFinancial systemSovereign debtMacroeconomicsFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper proposes that an International Monetary Fund (IMF) policy shift was the reason behind major changes in sovereign debt negotiation outcomes observed in 1989. The new policy, in marked departure from past policy, allowed the IMF to lend to nations in default. The paper highlights the stark improvements in debt forgiveness and post-negotiation debt servicing ability coincident with the IMF policy shift. A theoretical framework is proposed in which the IMF policy shift causes the observed changes in negotiation outcomes. The model highlights the policy’s potential to improve a country’s outside option during negotiations of defaulted debt. In the model, this improvement leads to increased debt forgiveness which in turn leads to less post-negotiation debt servicing difficulties. The model is then used to address an important question regarding the nature of post-negotiation default risk. The case is made that countries face persistent, rather than temporary, default risk after such negotiations. To avert such risk, they moderate their borrowing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.007

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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