Impact of FDI Restrictions on Inward FDI in OECD Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attracting FDI has become an integral part of the national development strategies in many economies, as it is generally believed that the benefits from foreign direct investment (FDI) outweigh its drawbacks. The UNCTAD in its World Investment Report (2006) highlights that there were 205 FDI related policy changes across the world in 2005, and most of these changes made conditions more favourable for foreign companies to enter and operate. However, FDI is still far less liberalized than trade in goods and services. Recent studies undertaken at the OECD show that although declined significantly since 1980s, barriers to inward FDI are still widespread in OECD countries. This paper explores the impact of FDI restrictions on inward FDI stocks using panel time series (1981-2004) data for 23 OECD countries. Our empirical results show that FDI restrictions do have significant impact on inward FDI stocks. The estimated short-run elasticity of inward FDI stocks with respect to FDI restrictions is in the range between –0.06 to –0.14, and the corresponding long-run elasticity is in the range between –0.64 to –1.49. This implies that by reducing barriers to FDI, countries such as Canada can significantly increase their level of inward FDI stocks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".