MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226146437 · doi:10.18254/s207054760019822-1

Foreign direct investments in U.S. agricultural land

2022· article· en· W4226146437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alla Korotkikh

Bibliographic record

VenueRussia and America in the 21st Century · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultural landArable landForeign direct investmentAgricultureAgricultural economicsBusinessLand tenureInternational tradeGeographyEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

U.S. agricultural land remains attractive to foreign investors. As of December 31, 2020, foreign direct investment in this property amounted to $4.5 million, which is three times higher than in 2014. Foreign individuals and companies currently held an interest in nearly 15.2 million hectares of US agricultural land. This represents 2.9 percent of all privately owned agricultural land in the United States. Almost half of the reported foreign interest holdings of U.S. land are arable land and pastures, with timber and forestland accounting for 46 percent of the total acreage, which are mainly used by timber and "green" energy companies. Canadian investors own the largest amount of reported foreign-held agricultural land, with 32 percent. Foreign persons from an additional four countries, the Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Germany collectively held 31 percent of the foreign-held acreages in the United States. The state of Texas has the largest amount of foreign-held U.S. agricultural land. Maine has the second, Alabama - the third largest amount of foreign-held agricultural land. Three states collectively held more than 25% of the reported foreign-held agricultural land in the United States, the vast majority of which is forestland. Current law imposes no restrictions on the amount of private U.S. agricultural land that can be foreign owned. However, several states have imposed certain prohibitions or restrictions on foreign ownership, but do not significantly inhibit foreign farmland ownership, while most states expressly allow foreign ownership. The US government controls direct investment flows. Federal law requires foreign persons and entities to disclose to USDA information related to foreign investment and ownership of U.S. agricultural land. The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA) and its federal regulations, implemented by USDA, established a nationwide system for the collection of information pertaining to foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land. At the federal level, the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment in the United States in order to determine the effect of such transactions on U.S. national security.

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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussia and America in the 21st CenturySame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207