MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417138178 · doi:10.1111/jcms.70064

Fiscal Consolidation and Support for the Common Currency

2025· article· en· W4417138178 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Nones, Melle Scholten

Bibliographic record

VenueJCMS Journal of Common Market Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusterityConsolidation (business)EurobarometerEuropean unionCurrency unionRecessionFiscal unionFiscal policyFiscal multiplierOptimum currency area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The existence of a common currency and further integration within the European Monetary Union crucially depends on public legitimacy. As a response to the Global Financial Crisis and subsequent Sovereign Bond crisis, several European governments have implemented fiscal consolidation policies in an attempt to restore investors' confidence. According to its critics, though, austerity has also weakened public confidence in the European Union and its most visible economic symbol, the euro. Unfortunately, the simultaneity of recessions and fiscal consolidation makes it hard to disentangle the two effects empirically. Does austerity really decrease public support for the euro, or are they both explained by the macroeconomy? In this paper, we attempt to solve this puzzle relying on a rich dataset of fiscal adjustments that are weakly exogenous to the business cycle. The statistical analysis of a panel of 19 European countries and Eurobarometer surveys conducted therein between 2004 and 2019 suggests that fiscal consolidation in general, and expenditure‐based fiscal consolidation more specifically, affected support for the Euro negatively but that this effect is modest. We also find that these effects are conditional on both individuals' self‐placement on the political spectrum and their employment status.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.302
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCMS Journal of Common Market StudiesSame topicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal PoliciesFrench-language works237,207