MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150603567 · doi:10.2202/1469-3569.1084

ASEAN and FTAA: External Threats and Internal Institutional Weaknesses

2004· article· en· W2150603567 on OpenAlexaff
Yasheng Huang, Randall Mørck, Bernard Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Politics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentCorporate governanceInternational economicsInternational tradeEconomicsBusinessShock (circulatory)EntrepreneurshipEconomic systemMacroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ASEAN countries perceive the possible formation of the FTAA as a potential threat on the grounds that it may divert export markets and foreign direct investment (FDI) capital to the FTAA region. This effect, together with the “China factor” and the hangover from the 1997 financial crisis, posts a concern to the ASEAN countries' economic growth. We show that, with Singapore as an exception, ASEAN countries are afflicted with state activism, poor property rights protection, and under-developed corporate governance. We argue that a poor institutional environment may exacerbate the effects of an external shock – such as that of FTAA – and thus we need to explicitly incorporate the role of institutional environments in our analysis. We further argue that while FDI flows to locations with market opportunities, a location's institutional environment affects the composition of FDI. Due to ASEAN countries' institutional weakness, its substantial inward FDI has mainly substituted, rather than complemented, local entrepreneurship. As FTAA may divert FDI flows into ASEAN countries, their appropriate response is to improve institutional quality so that the share of the more productive complementary FDI will increase in the total 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and PoliticsSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207