Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the study is to assess whether outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) and home country capital investment are substitutes or complements. Design/methodology/approach Case studies of 22 Canadian multinational companies (MNCs) were carried out, and the qualitative and quantitative information from the case studies was used to evaluate whether OFDI and home country capital investment were substitutes or complements for the sample MNCs over the period 2000‐2010. Findings Two primary strategic motives were identified for the OFDI undertaken by the sample MNCs: market‐seeking; and resource‐seeking. Across the sample, domestic investment was typically a poor strategic alternative to OFDI. Furthermore, OFDI promoted faster revenue growth for the MNCs which stimulated increased domestic investment in later time periods. Hence, OFDI and domestic capital investment are complements in the longer run. Practical implications Home country government policies that directly or indirectly discourage OFDI will also discourage domestic investment by home country MNCs. This, in turn, might discourage investment by small and medium‐sized enterprises in the home country, if government limitations on OFDI hamper the growth of MNC head offices in the home country. Originality/value The study provides evidence drawing on case studies rather than traditional econometric models. The case study methodology provides evidence on the underlying strategic imperatives for OFDI that is not identified by econometric studies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".