Does the Quality of Investment Protection Affect FDI Flows to Developing Countries? Evidence from Latin America
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Studies on the impact of international investment agreements (IIAs), including bilateral investment treaties (BITs), on foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows have been inconclusive. This paper contributes to the debate about the effectiveness of IIAs using an original database that differentiates between investment agreements according to the quality of investor protection, and which covers a wide variety of trade and investment agreements signed and ratified in the Americas. We find evidence that in the least likely case of south–south FDI flows, high‐quality international investment treaties have a demonstrable effect on foreign direct investment inflows. Moreover, international investment agreements appear to be most effective in a context of deeper economic integration. That is, they work better when they provide higher quality protection to investors and when they are combined with other preferential economic integration agreements, such as trade agreements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it