MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2849861180 · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2018.87

Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution? MNEs, FDI, and the Cycle of Corruption in Africa

2018· article· en· W2849861180 on OpenAlexaff
Aloysius Newenham‐Kahindi, Charles E. Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage changeForeign direct investmentMultinational corporationContext (archaeology)BusinessPolitical corruptionInvestment (military)PoliticsDevelopment economicsInternational economicsDeveloping countryEconomicsEconomic systemMarket economyInternational tradePolitical scienceEconomic growthMacroeconomicsLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corruption is a persistent and pervasive concern worldwide, leading to lower levels of economic growth, the erosion of political and legal institutions, and decreased foreign and domestic investment. Yet, many questions remain about the role that multinational enterprises (MNEs) play in exacerbating or mitigating corruption. We address such questions by examining corruption in sub-Saharan Africa, a context with increasing levels of economic growth and foreign investment, but varying levels of success in addressing corruption. We generate new insights with respect to the nature of corruption itself, causes of corruption, consequences of corruption, and how corruption can be fought. We find that rather than corruption being an inherently unavoidable ‘cost of doing business’ in developing countries, the attributes of FDI and actions of MNEs play a significant role in influencing whether corrupt activities are enabled or curbed in a host country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207