MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412190451 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18070381

From Boom to Bust: Unravelling the Cyclical Nature of Fiji’s Money Demand

2025· article· en· W4412190451 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nikeel Nishkar Kumar, Kulsoom Bibi, Rajesh Mohnot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIsland Studies and Pacific Affairs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBustBoomKeynesian economicsEconomicsMonetary economicsOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates cyclical asymmetries in money demand models considering the moderating effect of financial development. Prior research has overlooked this issue in the money demand literature within the Fijian context, where research is outdated. Using annual data from 1983 to 2023, we find that income elasticity is about positive unity, irrespective of recessions or expansions. In expansions, an increase in interest rates reduces money demand. An increase in interest rates reduces money demand nine times more strongly in recessions. These effects are accentuated with financial development. Declining interest rates do not impact money demand. The findings suggest that stable money demand could be achievable, but only once the impact of structural breaks is accounted for. Under ideal conditions—without such breaks—money demand exhibits stability, and its connection to income and interest rates appears predictable. However, in reality, structural disruptions complicate this relationship, making money demand less consistent with its key drivers and undermining the reliability of money supply as a monetary policy instrument. The findings align with the pulling on a string hypothesis that monetary contractions control inflation, but expansions may not impact output.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicIsland Studies and Pacific AffairsFrench-language works237,207