Foreign Portfolio Equity Investments, Financial Liberalization, and Economic Development
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
Reform of local capital markets and relaxation of capital controls to attract foreign portfolio investments (FPIs) has become an integral part of development strategy. The proximity of market openings and large, sudden shifts in international capital flows gave credence to the notion that the liberalization was the primary culprit in precipitating the recent Asian crisis. Hence, this paper reassesses the benefits and costs of FPIs from the perspective of the recipients. Specifically, it discusses the various FPI contributions and presents empirical evidence regarding the relationship between FPIs and market development, degree of capital market integration, cost of capital, cross‐market correlation and market volatility. It is clear that the evidence on benefits of FPIs is strong, whereas the policy concerns regarding resource mobilization, market comovements, contagion, and volatility are largely unwarranted. The authors make some policy suggestions regarding preconditions for capital market openings, market regulation, and liberalization sequencing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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