MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596395659

Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in Ghana

2012· article· en· W1596395659 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank Gyimah Sackey, George Compah-Keyeke, James Nsoah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentEconomicsAugmented Dickey–Fuller testQuarter (Canadian coin)IncentiveError correction modelInvestment (military)Real gross domestic productTime seriesUnit root testMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsInternational economicsUnit rootCointegrationEconometricsMarket economyPoliticsMathematicsStatisticsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Economic Growth has been a topical issue for several decades. Policymakers in a large number of countries are engaged in creating all kinds of incentives to attract FDI, because it is assumed to positively affect economic growth. This paper investigates the effect of FDI on economic growth in Ghana. The paper, test for the presence of the long run linear relationship between FDI inflows and Economic Growth (GDP) for Ghana. The study employs various econometrics tools such as Dickey Fuller (DF) and Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) tests, Vector Auto Regression (VAR) and Johansen Co-integration test on time series data from the first quarter of 2001 to the fourth quarter of 2010. The results reveal that a long run relationship exists between the variables, and that FDI is positively related to economic growth in Ghana. Ghana should therefore continue to reform its economic and foreign policy to attract more investors which can help boost its economy. Keywords: Foreign Direct Investment, Economic Growth, Vector Auto Regression (VAR), Co- Integration, and Unit Roots

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207