ArticlePloS one2025
Testing for the footprints of stabilization economic policy in forecast errors.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper introduces a novel statistical test, the Policy Effects Lagrange Multiplier (PELM) test, to detect stabilization policy effects in the distribution of forecast errors from dynamic financial models. Traditional analyses of policy impact typically rely on explicit policy information or direct intervention data, which are often unavailable or incomplete. In contrast, the proposed PELM test infers policy footprints from the distribution of forecast errors alone. Empirically applied to sovereign bond yield data from 33 countries before the Russian financial crisis of 2014, the test identifies countries showing stabilization policy footprints. Subsequent analysis shows that significant budgetary improvements were observed for years following the crisis in the group of countries where our test statistically confirmed stabilization policies. This confirms the rationale of test foundations and also indicates its predictive properties. Robustness checks further validate these findings across various model specifications and sensitivity scenarios. The proposed PELM test offers policymakers and researchers a powerful tool for evaluating stabilization policies, facilitating better forecasting and assessing policy efficiency in diverse economic contexts without necessitating detailed policy intervention data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.