Determinants of Regional Distribution of FDI Inflows across China’s Four Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper performs an empirical assessment of China’s inward FDI by analysing the relative importance of the potential determinants of FDI inflows across the four regions of China for the period 2001-2009. The determinants examined are: Market size, labour cost, labour quality, physical infrastructure development, telecommunication, degree of economic openness and government incentives to attract FDI. Our paper employs a multiple regression model for each region and then compares the results across four regions. The results indicate a mixed picture, for example we find that market size holds priority for FDI inflows into coastal region and northeast regions while the degree of openness is the most important determinant for FDI inflows in central region. The labour quality has no effect in central region but has a positive impact on FDI inflows into coastal and northeast regions. These results have important implications for China’s regional policy makers as they can help them identify the kinds of industries which respond to specific drivers and identify regional social economic characteristics which are more attractive to particular FDI inflows.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".