MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999532201 · doi:10.1163/156915003322763548

The Effects of Information Technology Achievement and Diffusion on Foreign Direct Investment

2003· article· en· W1999532201 on OpenAlexaff
Azmat Gani, Basu Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Global Development and Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentOpenness to experienceLaggingInformation and Communications TechnologyIndex (typography)BusinessEconomicsInvestment (military)Industrial organizationInternational economicsMacroeconomicsPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foreign direct investment (FDI) and the new information and communications technology (ICT) have gained significant grounds in many parts of the world in somewhat parallel fashion. The objective of this paper is to assess the proposition that the level of technological achievement and diffusion is a determining factor in attracting FDI in high-income countries. A sample of technologically advanced countries was chosen on the basis of the technological achievement index (TAI). Crosscountry data for the period of 1994 to 1998 were used to estimate a fixed effects model. The empirical results obtained provide strong evidence that technology diffusion of new instruments of ICT, such as mobile phones and Internet hosts, are major pull factors of FDI. The results also provide evidence that robust economic environment, low unit cost, and high degree of openness are other essential determinants of FDI. We conclude that in order to retain and attract FDI, countries should create opportunities for useful innovations to be created and diffused, as well as maintain flexible, competitive and dynamic economic environments. The main policy implication for countries lagging in terms of attracting foreign investment is to build on reforms that emphasize creation and diffusion of ideas and products, as well as maintain a high degree of openness to new investors, especially in ICT.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Global Development and TechnologySame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207