MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388774433 · doi:10.1186/s40008-023-00310-1

Re-estimation of the savings retention coefficient in OECD countries: a new measure of home country bias

2023· article· en· W4388774433 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Harutaka Takahashi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Structures · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Rochester
KeywordsEconomicsFinancial crisisEconometricsEquity (law)EstimationMeasure (data warehouse)Investment (military)Monetary economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The recent home bias is primarily related to the equity bias as measured by the international capital asset pricing model (CAPM); this measure has declined over the past two decades amid financial globalization, but remains high in most developed countries. The key to understanding this puzzling phenomenon lies in how accurately this indicator can be predicted. In this paper, we propose to use the savings retention coefficient estimated by the Feldstein–Horioka (F–H) regression as a cross-country measure of home bias. We re-estimate the savings retention coefficient based on an estimation model in which the FH regression is embedded in the model derived from Tobin's q-theory of saddle-road dynamics of investment under convex adjustment costs. We then use dynamic panel estimation to estimate the new measure in OECD countries. The main empirical results are as follows. The new measure of home country bias, such as the equity bias measure, declined steadily until 2008, but recovered to the level of the 60 s and 70 s after the 2008 financial crisis. Interestingly, people expected home country bias to be very high after the financial crisis, but in fact it simply returned to its previous level.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic StructuresSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207