Impact of Bilateral and Multilateral Aid on Domestic Savings in Low and Middle-Income Sub Sahara African Countries: Mediating Role of Institutional Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of bilateral and multilateral aid on domestic savings in SSA countries, and assess whether the impact depends on the quality of institutions. Using a panel data set of 28 selected SSA countries from 1996 – 2015, a model was specified and estimated using the techniques of random effects based on results of the Hausman test. The results show that only bilateral aid has a significant negative impact on domestic savings of SSA countries, implying a crowding-out effect. However, the impact of multilateral aid was found insignificant. After interacting bilateral and multilateral aid with institutional quality, it turns out that the negative impact of bilateral aid persists whereas multilateral aid shows a positive impact on domestic savings. It is interesting to note that aid regardless of the composition crowds out domestic savings in middle income SSA countries even after interacting with institutions, while for the case of low income countries, foreign aid particularly multilateral aid complements domestic saving if accompanied with improvement in the quality of institutions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".