<scp>FDI</scp> and Financial Market Development in Africa
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
Abstract The literature on the relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI), financial market development (FMD) and economic growth focuses mainly on two aspects: the relationship between FDI and economic growth, and the role played by FMD in that linkage. The literature is almost silent on the relationship and the direction of causality between FDI and FMD. Although it has been established that FDI contributes more to growth in countries with a more developed financial market, it is not clear how FDI and FMD interact with each other. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap in the African context. Particularly, in Africa, where stock markets experience low liquidity and less transparency, FDI can be an impetus for financial market reforms and serve as a mechanism to improve the transparency and the depth of the financial markets. Also, well‐functioning financial markets can help channel foreign investments more efficiently into productive sectors, and therefore create more value for investors, hence making the countries more attractive to FDI. In short, both FDI and FMD will impact each other simultaneously, which is confirmed by our findings. We document a bidirectional causality between FDI and FMD. Furthermore, the multivariate regression results of the system of simultaneous equations also confirm the positive relationship between FDI and FMD in Africa. We also find that FDI contributes to economic growth in Africa after controlling for endogeneity between FDI, FMD and economic growth.
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 | 0.000 | 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