THE CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK OF CANADIAN MACROECONOMIC POLICIES: A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION? PRELIMINARY DRAFT. DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION Abstract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordination between fiscal and monetary policy is a challenging issue for economic authorities, particularly in the European context, with a single monetary policy and twelve national fiscal policies. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the current European framework is the most appropriate framework with which to achieve a good degree of macroeconomic stabilization and a high degree of credibility, or whether a less formalized framework, inspired from the Canadian one, could be an alternative. This paper first focuses on European and Canadian macroeconomic policy frameworks, which are quite different even though their objectives are the same (low and stable inflation, and fiscal balance); we show how the EMU could benefit from the recent Canadian experience. We then conduct an empirical study on monetary and fiscal policies over the past three decades in Canada and in the three biggest European countries, to determine how fiscal and monetary policy decisions have been made. We focus mainly on the interactions between the fiscal and monetary authorities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".