MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522546273 · doi:10.3386/w19019

Offshore jurisdictions (including Cyprus), corruption money laundering and Russian round-trip investment

2013· report· en· W1522546273 on OpenAlexaff
Svetlana Ledyaeva, Päivi Karhunen, John Whalley

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2013
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoney launderingLanguage changeInvestment (military)BusinessReal estateForeign direct investmentSubmarine pipelineEconomyFinancial systemFinanceMonetary economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceEngineeringMacroeconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we analyze the link between corruption money laundering and round-trip investment via offshore jurisdictions utilizing Russian firm-level data.In particular we empirically explore location strategies of round-trip investors (namely, from Cyprus and British Virgin Islands) across Russia and compare them with the benchmark group of genuine foreign investors in Russia.We further study the determinants of the fraction of round-trip investment in total foreign investment in Russian regions.We find that round-trip investors tend to locate in more corrupt Russian regions than their genuine foreign counterparts and the fraction of round-trip investment is also significantly higher in corrupt regions.Taking into account that a large fraction of round-trip investment in Russia is concentrated in real estate and financial sectors, our results point to the conclusion that there is a strong link between round-trip investment and corruption money laundering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.497
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.038 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207