MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069699895 · doi:10.1080/12265080802273356

Multinational Enterprises, Technology Diffusion, and Host Country Absorptive Capacity: A Note

2008· article· en· W2069699895 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Elmawazini, Pran Manga, Samir Saadi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Economic Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsorptive capacityMultinational corporationProductivityPanel dataDeveloping countryEconomicsTotal factor productivityHost (biology)EconometricsEmpirical researchDiffusionDemographic economicsIndustrial organizationEconomic growthMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous empirical studies show mixed support for the hypothesis that the impact of technology diffusion from multinational enterprises (MNEs) on host country productivity growth depends on host country absorptive capacity. One explanation is that the results of these empirical studies are sensitive to the measures of absorptive capacity used. This paper contributes to the empirical literature by investigating average years of schooling and total factor productivity gap as measures of host country absorptive capacity in 38 developed and developing countries. Panel data regression equations are estimated using a cross-sectionally heteroskedastic and timewise autoregressive (CHTA) model. The paper has two main results. The first result does not support the hypothesis that the technology diffusion from MNEs has a positive impact on the productivity growth in developing countries. The second result is that the total factor productivity gap is more appropriate than average years of schooling to measure host country absorptive capacity. This may suggest that the results of previous studies that used average years of schooling should be interpreted with caution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Economic ReviewSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207