The paradigm of the investment development path : does it holds for Portugal? Evidence for the period 1990-2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to discuss the validity of the Investment Development Path Hypothesis for Portugal, with reference to the historical period 1960-2011. Looking at the transformations that took place in the world economy in the last quarter of the 20th century, as a result of liberalization, deregulation and market opening process, one of the most striking features was the emergence of multinational enterprises in all sectors and countries of the world. Consequently, the Foreign Direct Investment flows promoted by these firms have grown significantly, even faster than world trade and world output, in the same period. According to the Investment Development Path (IDP) theory there is a dynamic and intertemporal relationship between an economy’s level of development and the country's inward and outward investment position. In this paper we estimate this hypothesis for Portugal and other 28 countries in different stages of development, for the period 1990-2011 at an aggregate level. We use fixed-effects panel data models and generally our research ´s results provide support to the IDP theoretical paradigm, although we couldn’t capture all the stages predicted, given the lack of heterogeneity between the most countries of our sample and also the relatively short time period considered.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".