UNSOUND FISCAL POLICIES AND FINANCIAL MARKETS DISCIPLINE Briefing Paper to the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament Second Quarter 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a general perception about the apparent lack of discipline that financial markets impose to the Euro Area member countries that are following unsound or excessive fiscal policies and are not meeting Maastricht and Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) targets. This perception is not new, there are some economists who think that one of the arguments used for introducing the SGP was the recognition that the financial markets were not imposing enough discipline on those member countries following unsound fiscal policies, and, therefore, it was necessary to achieve a Pact among Member States to agree on fiscal targets to be met and on sanctions to be imposed to fiscal profligate members not meeting them. Nevertheless, in my opinion this perception does not fit reality. The origin of the SGP is mainly the following: before EMU, each fiscally irresponsible member country was alone bearing the full financial consequences of its budgetary laxity and its bond yields and borrowing costs were going up. After EMU, as fiscal policies are remaining a matter of national governments, the higher borrowing costs of one irresponsible member country are partly shared by the whole Euro Area, through negative spillovers, therefore, some kind of fiscal coordination and hence some kind of shared responsibility for the Euro Area creditworthiness becomes
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.010 |
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".