MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963888172 · doi:10.1080/19186444.2019.1640014

Foreign direct investment, financial development and economic growth in Africa: evidence from threshold modeling

2019· article· en· W2963888172 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kouassi Yeboua

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational Corporation Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentOrder (exchange)Panel dataSample (material)EconomicsInvestment (military)Financial sector developmentInternational economicsDeveloping countryBusinessFinanceMacroeconomicsEconomic growthPoliticsEconometricsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the role of local financial development in facilitating the materialisation of the growth-enhancing effect of foreign direct investment (FDI) in African countries. To this end, we improve on earlier studies by using a panel smooth transition regression model (PSTR) which is able to deal with heterogeneity issue associated with cross-country data. Based on a sample of 26 African countries over the period of 1990–2013, the results show that there is a minimum threshold level of financial development above which the growth-enhancing effect of FDI is unlocked in African countries. In other words, only countries that are located above a certain threshold level of financial development enjoy the growth-enhancing effect of FDI. These findings suggest that effort should be made by financial policymakers in African countries to improve the local financial markets conditions in order to extract the economic gains from FDI.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations40
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransnational Corporation ReviewSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207