Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in the Short Run and Long Run: Empirical Evidence from Developing Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A contribution of foreign direct investment to economic growth is possibly one of the widely examined topics in academic research in the last five decades. However, few studies have examined both the short run and long run impacts of this effect concurrently for developing and emerging markets, in particular during the period of economic turmoil that includes the global financial crisis. As such, this paper examines and provides additional and relevant quantitative evidence on the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on economic growth, both in the short run and the long run in developing countries of the lower-middle-income group in 2000–2014. Various econometric methods are employed such as the panel-based unit root test, Johansen cointegration test, Vector Error Correction Model (VECM), and Fully Modified OLS (FMOLS) to ensure the robustness of the findings. The results of this study show that FDI helps stimulate economic growth in the long run, although it has a negative impact in the short run for the countries in this study. Other macroeconomic factors also play an important role in explaining economic growth in these countries. Money supply has a positive effect on growth in the short run while total credit for private sector has a negative effect. In addition, long-run economic growth is driven by money supply, human capital, total domestic investment, and domestic credit for the private sector. Based on these results, recommendations for the governments of these countries have been developed.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it