MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206262163 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15020048

Determining Factors of FDI Flows to Selected Caribbean Countries

2022· article· en· W4206262163 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra Sookram, Roger Hosein, Leera Boodram, George Saridakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentEconomicsNatural resourceInternational economicsEconomic rentCaribbean regionPopulationDeveloping countryDevelopment economicsInternational tradeMacroeconomicsEconomic growthLatin AmericansMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is a vital ingredient in achieving sustained growth in the Caribbean region. However, FDI inflows have been affected by issues such as market factors, trade barriers, costs factors, investment climate, political and foreign exchange stability. To this end, this paper examines the factors affecting FDI flows into Caribbean countries. We argue that Small Island Developing States in the Caribbean (SIDSC) can be affected by issues such as their small market size, high cost of energy, proneness to exogenous shocks from commodity prices, natural disasters and climate change. A point to note is that countries in the Caribbean with natural resources are expected to have biased FDI inflows. Additionally, countries throughout the Caribbean have different economic and productive structures and unique issues that can affect them based on their individual characteristics. To this end, a panel Autoregressive Distributed Lagged (ARDL) model is used to determine the factors affecting FDI inflows in the Caribbean over the period 2000 to 2019. The findings reveal that GDP growth, natural resource rents, gross capital formation and population growth are significant factors influencing growth in the Caribbean region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207