Optimum currency areas: a policy view "
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robert Mundell's pathbreaking article on the theory of optimum cur-rency areas could nowadays seem an abstract intellectual exercise with no immediate bearing on the policy issues of half a ceritury ago. On rereading his paper, however, this impression soon evaporates. In the introduction, Mundell (1961, p. 657) denies that "the question is pure-ly academic", drawing attention to new projects of economic integra-tion, Canada's experiment with flexible exchange rates and a better understanding of the functions of money in relation to problems of economic policy. Economic theories are often revamped when the is-sues they deal with become topical. The theory of optimum currency areas is a case in point. Its recent revival in connection with the launching of Economic and Monetary Union is but the latest instance of renewed interest stimulated by the process of European economic integration: in the early post-war years with the establishment of the first European institutions and the Common Market; after the publica-tion of the Werner Report in 1970 and, finally, upon the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. A vast literature then grew out of Mundell's semi-naI paper, introducing further optimum principles. In the last decade, however, nove! theoretical deve!opments have given the subject a new twist. In the traditional approach, optimality depends on exogenous criteria- labour mobility, openness to trade, product diversification and several others- reflecting the once-do mi-nant Keynesian paradigm. The recent equilibrium approach instead emphasizes the endogeneity of optimality criteria, bringing the analy-sis of the subject into line with the new classical macroeconomics. o Banca d'Italia, Ufficio Ricerche Storiche, Roma (Italy); e-mai!:
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".