Nation branding for foreign direct investment: an Integrative review and directions for research and strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to address a heretofore neglected area in research, nation branding, for the purpose of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). It compares and contrasts the well-established literature on decision-making and location choice in FDI with studies in the nascent field of nation branding, with a view to developing directions for future research that result from the identification of research gaps at the intersection point between the two areas. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a systematic and integrative review of several streams within the relevant literatures, from the theory of decision-making in FDI to the similarities and differences between advertising, promotion, branding and marketing for investment on the part of nations and sub- or supra-national places. Findings Each of the two areas is characterized by lack of consensus as to the principal factors that affect investor and nation decisions and actions, resulting in several knowledge gaps that need to be addressed by new research along the lines suggested in the study. Research limitations/implications A large number of avenues for potential future research are identified, from assessing the importance of target country image in location choice to the adverse effects arising from the emphasis on “promotion” rather than “marketing” on the part of places engaged in nation branding efforts. Practical implications The study examines several problems that affect the practice of nation branding for FDI and points to alternative approaches that may enhance place marketers’ effectiveness in their efforts to attract foreign capital. Originality/value Notwithstanding the global growth of FDI in volume and importance, and the omnipresence of nation branding campaigns to promote exports or attract tourism and investment, there has been virtually no research to date on the core issue, nation branding for FDI. The study uses a strategic perspective that highlights key nation branding issues related to FDI, and FDI issues related to nation branding, and suggests a comprehensive agenda for research in the future.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".