Effect of Aid for Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Inflows on the Utilization of Unilateral Trade Preferences Offered by the QUAD Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the effect of Aid for Trade (AfT) flows and foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows, as well as their interplay on the utilization of non-reciprocal trade preferences (NRTPs) offered by the Quadrilaterals (i.e., QUAD countries, which are Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United States). Two major blocks of NRTPs provided by the QUAD countries have been considered, namely, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programs and other NRTPs. The analysis has covered 114 beneficiary countries of these NRTPs and the period of 2002–2018. Several findings have emerged from the analysis. Total AfT flows and FDI inflows contribute to enhancing the utilization rate of both GSP programs and other NRTPs, and are strongly complementary in affecting positively the utilization of both types of NRTPs. Finally, beneficiary countries’ level of export product diversification matters for the effect of both AfT flows and FDI inflows on the utilization of NRTPs. The conclusion section discusses the implications of these findings.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".