Does FDI Accelerate Economic Growth? The OECD Experience Based on Panel Data Estimates for the Period 1980-2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although empirical literature offers rich insights on the relationship of FDI and economic growth, it provides mixed evidence on the existence of productivity externalities in the host country generated by foreign multinational companies. A branch of literature suggests that the positive impact of FDI is conditional on countries stock of human capital or a threshold absorptive capacity. Most of the studies that came up with these conclusions are either based on developing or a mix of developing and developed country experiences. There is a dearth of literature explicitly focused on developed country experiences. Moreover, most literature has focused on the impact of inward FDI on host country economic growth. Does outward FDI exert any influence on source country economic growth? This paper addresses these issues using panel time series data from 25 OECD countries for the period 1980-2004 in a cross-country regression framework. It finds that both inward and outward are positively correlated with host and source country economic growth. However, the impact of FDI on economic growth is moderate. Results suggest that the elasticity of GDP growth with respect to both inward and outward FDI in the host and source countries is about 0.01.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".