Foreign Direct Investment and Trade—Between Complementarity and Substitution. Evidence from European Union Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This aim of this work is to study the relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) and trade. FDI is a driving force for economic growth for host countries. The positive effects of FDI are seen in many aspects of the economy. However, the implications of FDI on foreign trade are questionable. Therefore, this study uses a Granger causality technique to test whether the relationship between FDI and foreign trade is complementary or substitutive. The findings of this study indicate that this relationship appears to be complementary, and FDI investment does cause an increase in trade flow in the countries that are taken into consideration. This research aims to make a comparison between the relations of FDI flows of three groups of countries from the European Union (EU)—Romania and Bulgaria, the Visegrád Group and the Euro area—for the period of 2005 to 2019. However, the results indicate that this link between the variables is not yet found for the three group of countries, and further research is required in this aspect. This leads to the conclusion that the FDI impact on foreign trade of the host country depends on the type of investment and absorptive capacity of the receiver, the economic development of host and home countries, and not every type of FDI leads to more trade.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".