MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033077883 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v3n3p201

Intellectual Property Rights, Investment Climate and FDI in Developing Countries

2010· article· en· W2033077883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samuel Olorunfemi Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentOpenness to experienceIntellectual propertyTRIPS architectureDeveloping countryInternational economicsTRIPS AgreementInternational tradePanel dataBusinessInvestment (military)EconomicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the impact of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection on foreign direct investment (FDI)? Has the coming into effect of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) had any impact on FDI inflows in developing countries? This paper answers these questions by the use of panel data for a cross – section of 75 developing countries over a period of 19 years (1985 – 2003). The results of the study indicate that: 1) strengthening IPR has a positive effect on FDI; 2) the impact of patent protection on FDI after the TRIPS agreement is far and above that of the pre – TRIPS era; 3) the degree of openness, growth rate of the economy and investment are also key determinants of FDI. The findings of the study suggest that strengthening IPR is only one component of the many factors needed to maximize the potential of developing countries to attract FDI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations50
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207