Does Economic Growth Attract FDI Inflows? A Dynamic Panel Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic growth is deemed to be a conducive factor in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) as it often confers location advantage to host countries and fosters business confidence. This paper examines the short-run and the long-run effects of economic growth on FDI inflows. The empirical analysis is conducted through the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) System estimator for dynamic panel models. The main results show significant positive effects of economic growth on FDI inflows, and they indicate that the magnitudes of these effects are statistically comparable over time and do not diminish with higher economic growth levels. They also reveal important variations in the magnitude of these effects across geo-economic regions and over pertinent economic variables such as economic development level, international trade and foreign investment openness, and endowment in natural resources. These findings underscore the significance of developing growth-enhancing policies that are designed on the basis of the economic and geo-economic characteristics of host countries. Such policies could be coupled with international trade and foreign investment openness directions to stimulate stronger responses of FDI inflows to economic growth and mitigate the implications of unfavorable global and regional political conditions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
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 it