MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264059599 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n2p51

Drivers of Globalization of R&D Investment by U.S. Multinational Enterprises: Evidence from Industry-Level Data

2016· article· en· W2264059599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yixiao Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationGlobalizationBusinessForeign direct investmentInvestment (military)Panel dataEndowmentEconomicsInternational tradeMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing country-level and firm-level studies have shed light on the mechanisms driving the globalization of R&D investment by multinational enterprises. However, there is a lack of industry-level evidence on this issue, which is much needed for the robustness of the theoretical and conceptual framework developed from country- and firm-level studies. Therefore, this study examines the determinants of overseas R&D investment by multinational enterprises from a single country, the United States, using an industry-level panel dataset. This study covers U.S. multinational enterprises in seven two-digit-level North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) manufacturing industries in twenty-three countries over the period 1999-2008. The empirical findings suggest that technology-seeking motive, technology-adaptation motive, and access to an abundant pool of researchers exert positive impact on the R&D intensity of U.S.-based multinational enterprises in a host country. The roles of investment position, institutional quality and distance are not found to be robust. These findings are largely consistent with the current theoretical understanding on R&D globalization by multinational enterprises. The findings point to the need for policies that strengthen domestic R&D stock, enhance human capital endowment and support a domestic market that is open to the world in order to attract overseas R&D investment by multinational enterprises.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207