10 The Rand Crises of 1998 and 2001: What Have We Learned?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past ten years, the South African rand has been subject to periodic crises, the causes of which were by no means immediately obvious at the time (Figure 10.1a and 10.1b). This study examines two of these crises episodes, in 1998 and in 2001, and finds that, while both were characterized by intensive pressure on the rand, the policy response, and subsequent macroeconomic performance, were very different. Between end-April and end-August in 1998, the rand depreciated by 28 percent in nominal terms against the U.S. dollar. This was accompanied by increases of around 700 basis points in short-term interest rates and longterm bond yields, while sovereign U.S. dollar-denominated bond spreads increased by about 400 basis points. At the same time share prices fell by 40 percent and output contracted during the third quarter of 1998 (quarteron-quarter). In 2001, the rand depreciated by 26 percent in nominal terms against the U.S. dollar between end-September and end-December, but short-term interest rates remained stable, long-term bond yields increased
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".