Foreign direct investment and technology spillovers in Mexico: 20 years of NAFTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the development of technology capabilities in the manufacturing sector of Mexico during the last two decades.It has been argued that the inclusion of Mexico in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 would be enough to catch up with Canada and the United States.In this regard, trade liberalisation and foreign direct investment (FDI) would have been two strategic tools to close the technology gap between Mexico and its commercial partners in North America.Yet, after twenty years of NAFTA, it has been demonstrated that many indigenous firms in Mexico must develop an absorptive capacity to benefit from FDI.This paper suggests that the debate on the Asian miracle in the 1990s could be an adequate theoretical framework to discuss technology development and industrialisation in the case of emerging economies.In fact, this debate reveals two alternative approaches to explain the development of technology capabilities: (i) the accumulation view of growth, and (ii) the assimilation view of growth.Therefore, the Asian miracle exemplifies how entrepreneurship, learning and a supporting innovation policy could be an adequate strategy to benefit from FDI and technology spillovers in the case of 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".