ULUSLARARASI SERMAYE AKIMLARININ KONTROLÜ VE AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN KONUYA YAKLAŞIMI HAKKINDA BİR İNCELEME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1973, the United States of America, Germany, Canada, Switzerland and Holland and then, in 1979, Japan and England abolished the controls on their capital accounts. Thus, a financial liberalization movement emerged initially in the developed countries. Developing countries such as Turkey, Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia joined the financial liberalization movement in 1980s hoping to raise external capital for the domestic investments. In the end, numerous countries discarded in the last forty years the regulations that could hinder the mobility of international capital. It is known that international organizations such as IMF and the World Bank had a consensus view on the need for increasing the mobility of international capital until recent past. However, from a theoretical standpoint, views for managing international capital flows always existed in the economics literature along with the views advocating perfect capital mobility. In the aftermath of the global financial collapse which hit the advanced economic centers such as the United States and the Euro Area in 2008, number of the advocates of perfect capital mobility - including the IMF and the World Bank decreased and the view that management of capital flows might result in better ends became the dominanting view. In this context, a similar intellectual tendency emerged in the European Union and some practices came into effect. This article summarizes the literature on capital movements along with various methods of capital controls and reviews the discussions and implementations within the European Union regarding the capital controls.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.011 |
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".