MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562903981 · doi:10.1080/00036846.2016.1257211

Out of Africa? Locational determinants of South African cross-border mergers and acquisitions

2016· article· en· W2562903981 on OpenAlexaff
Amar Anwar, Mazhar Mughal

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMergers and acquisitionsEconomic geographyEconomicsInternational tradeInternational economicsBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Africa is the Africa’s biggest source of outward foreign direct investment. This study examines the principal locational motives of cross-border mergers and acquisitions CBMA by South African firms for the 1990–2014 period. The role of inter-country cultural and economic linkages is also studied. Firm-level data of South African merger and acquisition activities in 74 host countries are used to estimate a number of model specifications that control for host-country economic, geographical, cultural and institutional characteristics. Estimations are carried out using random-effects negative binomial panel model. Capturing the host-economy market and enhancing efficiency are found to be the two major motives driving South African corporations’ CBMA activities. Natural resources acquisition seems a less important motive, while strategic assets such as patents and technology do not appear to be attractive. The role of cultural and economic linkages between the home and the host country is found to be substantial. South African firms prefer investing in Africa, particularly in countries bordering South Africa. In light of the study’s findings, South African CBMA activities can be compared with those from other emerging economies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied EconomicsSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207