The Patterns of cross-border portfolio investments in the GCC region: do institutional quality and the number of expatriates play a role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we document the determinants of portfolio investments to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) economies by bringing up the role played by market forces, cultural\nanities, and institutional quality. We classify the GCC economies as host to 35 countries as per the Coordinated Portfolio Investment Surveys (CPIS) of the IMF for the period 2001- 2006. Using the CPIS data and data from various other reliable sources and appropriate\npanel data analysis techniques, we find a number of interesting results: 1) the relatively higher quality of institutional set up in GCC in comparison to other countries; 2) the relative volume of expatriates across source countries in GCC soil; and 3) bilateral factors\nsuch as trade linkages between GCC and source countries, all statistically and significantly explain portfolio investments to the GCC region. Additionally, we uncover the existence of a portfolio GCC bias". That is, GCC investors exhibit a strong preference towards their own markets when allocating their cross border nancial asset holdings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".