Analyzing FDI trends in emerging markets: Turkey vs CSEE and the Middle East
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
Purpose This paper aims to deconstruct the economic position of Turkey in comparison to its immediate neighbors, Central and South‐Eastern Europe (CSEE), and the Middle East, with a specific emphasis on Japanese Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Design/methodology/approach Several determinants of FDI intensity identified in the extant research are used to conduct this comparative analysis. The data is based on the foreign subsidiaries of Japanese firms. Findings The results confirm the ambiguous position of Turkey. It enjoys a high Gross Domestic Product growth despite a relatively low openness to trade. From cultural and political risk perspectives it is closer to the Middle East than to CSEE. In spite of its location advantages, the institutional environment continues to be an impediment, preventing Turkey from realizing its full investment potential. Thus, Japanese investors choose to invest in CSEE economies, which are slightly closer culturally to Japan, and significantly less risky. Research limitations/implications The descriptive nature of this study is due to a limited sample size. The comparison of a country with two regions might be too simplistic. Focus on Japanese FDI limits generalizability. Practical implications The results of this analysis confirm the importance of continuous market liberalization and political stabilization measures for attracting FDI. Government policies in the region should not only attempt to remedy local deficiencies but strive to create a comprehensive institutional framework. Originality/value This study contributes to the emerging market research in the region with paucity of data. Although comparisons among various European regions are common, such tri‐lateral analyses are rare.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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