Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflation targeting, a monetary policy framework, is criticized for its narrow mandate of safeguarding price stability only and neglecting other equally important macroeconomic variables. This negligence, according to the critics, might have had a role in the unprecedented, real business-cycle fluctuations observed in the past. Hence, they advocate for mandating central banks with equally emphasizing employment and output growth along with inflation. Theoretical claims aside, the literature does not present any empirical evidence on how to determine whether a central bank adheres to a single or a dual mandate. This study is aimed at filling this gap by analyzing the reaction functions of various central banks, including the ones targeting inflation and the ones with no specific targets. Using the panel data from OECD countries, our findings question the prevalent theoretical misunderstanding in the literature: the central banks with no specific targets (the dual-mandate monetary policy regimes) appear to be targeting the rate of inflation only, whereas the central banks that are thought to have a single-mandate seem to be targeting inflation, output growth, and unemployment. These results are significant, both statistically and economically, and question the baseless criticism of the inflation-targeting regime for neglecting employment and output growth.
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".