MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Modification of MNE Strategies in the Face of Financing Constraints

2024· book-chapter· en· W4399917885 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Umar Boodoo, Laurence Booth, George Georgopoulos, Walid Hejazi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)BusinessPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cross-border mergers and acquisitions (CBM&As) are a significant component of foreign direct investment (FDI), which in turn is at the heart of the international business strategy of multinational enterprises (MNEs). Given that CBM&As involve both a scale and an immediacy to raising financing that greenfield investments often lack, financially constrained firms are inhibited from undertaking CBM&As. The authors go further and show that these financing constraints impact the markets where MNEs target firms for CBM&A transactions. In the presence of such financing constraints, the determination of which markets are targeted by MNEs is directly related to the supply of capital in the target market and the institutional distance between the home and host markets. Evidence in support of the hypotheses is documented using firm-level data on CBM&As from Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries as well as Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) into every country globally for which data exist. The main implication of the research is that not only are financial constraints at the firm level important, but also that these constraints have a significant impact on the location of an acquisition target.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.130 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal trade and economics→French-language works237,207→