MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395956443 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.190438

Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Economic Growth — Case Study of the SEE Countries

2024· article· en· W4395956443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jehona Shkodra, Njomza Ahmeti, Arjeta Krasniqi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentEconomicsInternational economicsBusinessNatural resource economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main focus of this study is on foreign direct investment (FDI), which (through its direct and indirect contributions) can serve as the main driver of economic development for countries in general.The study examines countries in Southeastern Europe (SEE) -Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, Northern Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period 2005-2020 for the dependent variable, i.e., GDP, and for the independent variables: Goods and Services, Wages, Social Transfers, Subsidies, Investment Expenditures, and FDI.The techniques used to analyse the data include the descriptive method, the regression model, the DW test and (for multicollinearity between variables) the VIF test.In general, the study finds a positive and significant relationship between economic growth and FDI flows in some countries, but not in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina.Based on the results studied, more appropriate FDI policies are suggested.It is suggested that policy makers in these countries not only respond to protect the deterioration of GDP, but also support the infrastructure for doing business.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207