MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391387454 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v16n3p31

A BVAR Note on the J-Curve and the Marshall-Lerner Condition for Brazil

2024· article· en· W4391387454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francisco J. S. Rocha, Marcos R. V. Magalhães, Átila Amaral Brilhante

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsEconomicsMathematical economicsKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present work, the hypotheses of the J-curve and the Marshall-Lerner condition for Brazil from January 2003 to December 2019 were tested. The impulse-response function (IRF) and the variance decomposition (VD) of a Bayesian vector autoregressive model (Minnesota priors) served as instruments for the empirical verification of the above-mentioned hypotheses. The Bai and Perron (1998, 2003) structural break test was carried out, which identified two breaks and, consequently, three subsamples, from January 2003 to October 2007; December 2007 to June 2015; and July 2015 to December 2019. The results showed that the estimated BVAR empirically supports the hypotheses in question. In the short term, it is observed that a real depreciation of the Brazilian currency results, in the first five months, in a deficit in the trade balance. However, as of the fourth month, the result of the trade balance becomes positive, and it remains like that for longer than ten months. This means that one cannot reject the J-curve hypothesis. For a forecast horizon of 36 months, it was found that the Marshall-Lerner condition should not be rejected either. In other words, a currency devaluation causes an increase in the trade balance for longer than three years.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207