MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990160861 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n1p348

Capital Flight and Domestic Investment in Nigeria: Evidence From ARDL Methodology

2019· article· en· W2990160861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lionel Effiom, Alfa Charles Achu, Samuel Etim Edet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital flightInvestment (military)Capital (architecture)EconomicsCapital Consumption AllowanceCapital deepeningDistributed lagCapital outflowMacroeconomicsMonetary economicsCapital formationInternational economicsFinancial capitalMarket economyHuman capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capital flight is a challenge for many developing countries of the world. The problem is more severe in a nation like Nigeria where domestic investment has been terribly affected. This study undertakes an empirical investigation of the impact of capital flight on domestic investment in Nigeria between 1980 and 2017. Deploying the Auto Regressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) econometric methodology, the study finds that capital flight has negative and significant impact on domestic investment. In particular, the long run impact of capital flight on domestic investment (0.57) turns out to be more severe than its impact in the short run (0.27), implying that a continuous and persistent build-up of capital flight exerts a negative cumulative effect on domestic investment over time. The study further reveals that the quality of institutions in Nigeria is a disincentive to domestic investment. It therefore recommends the strengthening of institutions to rein in on the illegal outflow of capital from the Nigerian economy in order to guarantee the availability of investible funds. The real sector of the local economy must be grown to bolster the value of the naira. This will stem the tide of capital flight and attract investments into critical sectors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207