MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W312598149

Canadian Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: A Discrete Choice Analysis Approach

2000· article· en· W312598149 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sean O’Hagan, William Anderson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Regional Science · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueGlobal trade and economics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésForeign direct investmentMultinomial logistic regressionInvestment (military)International economicsEconomicsTariffDistribution (mathematics)BusinessInternational tradeMacroeconomicsPolitical sciencePolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Canadian researchers have traditionally been most concerned with incoming foreign direct investment (FDI). This preoccupation goes as far back as the late 1870s, when Canada's tariff policy resulted in a large inflow of foreign investment. The net inflow of FDI continued for the next century until the 1970s, when outward FDI by Canadian firms increased so rapidly that Canada became a net exporter of investment. Understanding the motivations behind Canadian investment abroad is important research goal. While previous studies have produced valuable results, their conclusions are often in conflict indicating that further research on FDI is necessary. For example, studies by Vertinsky and Raizada (1994) and Rao et al (1994) produce contradictory results on a number of factors. The main goal of this study is to determine why Canadian firms choose to invest in particular parts of the U.S. Do Canadian firms invest in the United States to gain greater access to large regional markets? Is it for tax purposes? Is it for skilled labour? Is it for low cost labour? This study attempts to answer questions such as these by analysing the spatial distribution of Canadian FDI in the United States from 1974 to 1994. A multinomial logit model is used to determine those factors that attract Canadian FDI to different U.S. states. Explaining FDI FDI is activity owned, organised, and controlled by a firm (or group of firms) outside its (or their) national boundaries. Specifically, Statistics Canada defines FDI as an investment that is made to acquire a lasting interest and effective voice in the management of enterprise operating in economy other than that of the (Statistics Canada 1997: 29). Statistics Canada suggests that to obtain effective voice or control, a direct investor must possess at least ten percent of the equity of enterprise (Statistics Canada 1997). Why do firms seek to obtain control of operations in a foreign country? Previous studies have attempted to increase our understanding of FDI through push and pull factors. Pull factors are the aspects of a foreign country that attract investment. On the other hand, push factors are elements of a home country that drive companies to seek investment opportunities elsewhere. Studies (Litvak and Maule 1981; Rugman 1987; Gandhi 1990; Knubley et al 1991; Meyer and Green 1996) repeatedly conclude that pull factors of foreign markets are more important than push factors in Canada. In particular, large foreign markets are attractive to Canadian investors. By examining the distribution of Canadian investment across states, we extend this argument by not only determining the relationship between Canadian FDI and large markets, but additional pull factors as well. Pull factors can be associated with John H. Dunning's (1977; 1991) Eclectic Paradigm. The principal hypothesis on which the Eclectic Paradigm is based suggests that a firm will engage in FDI if and when three conditions are satisfied. First, a firm must possess ownership advantages. These include such considerations as technology, know-how and brand names, and must be of sufficient value to overcome the risks of locating in unfamiliar business environment. Second, a firm's motivation to invest abroad depends not only on its ownership advantages, but also on its desire and ability to internalise these ownership advantages. Internalisation is the procedure by which a multinational firm preserves its ownership advantages by establishing a foreign subsidiary rather than leasing or selling its ownership advantages. The final aspect of the Eclectic Paradigm is locational advantages. Locational advantages determine which countries or regions host production by MNEs. Some areas appear more attractive to FDI than others. Eden (1993) groups locational advantages into three classes: economic, social and political. Economic advantages are based on area's endowment of labour, capital, natural resources, market and infrastructure. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,492
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,455

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,210
Écart entre enseignants0,155 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of Regional ScienceMême sujetGlobal trade and economicsTravaux en français237 207