Killing Five Birds with One Stone: Inward Foreign Direct Investment in Post-Crisis Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the first 35 years of the Republic of Korea's2 economic development, the government showed a clear preference for foreign capital in the form of loans rather than inward foreign direct investment (IFDI) as a means of financing its development plans. This reluctance to allow a greater degree of foreign participation in the domestic economy stemmed from a desire to control the allocation of financial resources and also reflected public concerns that increased levels of IFDI might lead to foreign domination of the Korean economy. The 1997 crisis led to a fundamental change in Korean attitudes towards inward investment, as a desperate need for capital, advanced technology and know-how prompted a comprehensive reform of FDI policy and promotional systems. However, while many Koreans recognized the contribution made by inward investment to the country's economic recovery and its potential role in promoting sustainable growth, anti-foreign capital sentiment lingered in some areas of society. The past two decades have seen a remarkable increase in global flows of capital and credit, most notably in the form of foreign direct investment. Although FDI in developed countries has accounted for the lion's share of these transactions, flows to developing countries have also accelerated in recent years. The rising level of inward investment in developing countries reflects, to a significant extent, changes in their perceptions of and attitudes towards IFDI. Whereas, in the 1970s and early 1980s, many potential host countries expressed concerns that inward investment might create monopolies, exploit the local economy and restrict competition in the domestic market, this negative view had changed to a more upbeat assessment by the 1990s, as scholars and practitioners had identified a range of beneficial effects of inward FDI in terms of promoting economic development.3
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".