Comparing Foreign Investment in China, Post-WTO Accession, with Foreign Investment in the United States, Post-9/11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTIONForeign investors exist in different shapes and sizes: two friends from Canada decide to devote their life savings into opening a seafood restaurant and bar in Costa Rica, which had been their lifelong dream; a newly divorced mother of three from United States invests half her earnings in stock in a foreign oil company; or a major manufacturing company with its operations in United Kingdom invests in opening up three new factories in various provinces of China. Foreign investment is perhaps one of most invaluable, sought-after resources a nation could ask for. While United States traditionally is considered most attractive country for foreign investment, countries such as China recently have been realizing their potential for attracting foreign investment at an exceedingly rapid pace.Foreign investment involves the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person [e.g., individual, branch, partnership, association, government] of 10 per centum or more of voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise. . . .2 As used today, investment is defined as the placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment.3 Every country has unique rules regarding foreign investment, with some regulations more restrictive than others. Regardless of how amenable a country is to foreign investment, each national economy has a specific framework that foreign investors must abide by in order to regulate domestic foreign investment.The United States holds title as world's largest economy;4 however, China is on course to becoming largest economically attractive country in world.5 The success of America's liberalized foreign investment regulations has been result of a system intended to foster a mutually beneficial relationship that assures national security.6 In contrast, China, set to overtake United States in attracting foreign investment in next twenty years, officially instituted a regulatory scheme not less than thirty years ago to attract foreign investment.7America's history of foreign investment dates back to 1606, 170 years before America's founding fathers declared independence from Great Britain. Investments made from 1606 to 1776 were direct investments, with overseas owners assuming full control over their American assets.8 The first such form of foreign direct investment was through Virginia Company in 1606, which established first permanent English settlement in America, in Jamestown, Virginia.9 In forming Virginia Company, Crown was under belief that stockholders involved would benefit from discoveries of gold and silver in America.10 After failing to find any gold or silver, Virginia company transitioned into a trading post, and, in 1613, first profits appeared in form of Virginia tobacco. During America's revolution in 1776, America was a nation of debts, relying heavily on foreign financing as domestic needs heavily increased due to funding requirements for Revolution.11 Since Declaration of Independence was signed, foreign investment has been pursued liberally, most noticeably through alien governments and private businesses' investment in American securities in form of stocks and bonds, leading to a substantial amount of foreign investment.12 The U.S. federal government has refrained from designating clear federal guidelines, spotlighting liberal attitude of United States toward foreign investors. Due to lack of clear federal guidelines on foreign investment, foreign investors must rely on state foreign investment guidelines and codified restrictions set out in statutes, which are flexible and encouraging toward foreign investors. For instance, an 1830 Supreme Court decision expresses restrictions on aliens to retain ownership over land in United States. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".