MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404360667 · doi:10.1093/ser/mwae045

Relative treatment of aliens: how level is the playing field for foreign firms in developing countries?

2024· article· en· W4404360667 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocio-Economic Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Level playing fieldDeveloping countryBusinessInternational tradeEconomicsEconomic growthMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article provides the first systematic analysis of whether developing country governments treat foreign firms better, worse or the same as domestic firms. We use a novel econometric estimator to analyze the World Bank’s Enterprise Surveys. In contrast to the intuition in much of the literature on the political economy of foreign investment, we show that foreign firms are not treated worse by host state governments on average. Also, whereas governments in low-income countries treat all firms poorly, they treat foreign firms relatively better than comparable domestic firms. This contrasting pattern means that the findings of the large and growing literature on the cross-country causes and consequences of the absolute treatment of foreign firms cannot be transferred to the question of relative treatment. It also has important policy implications—for instance in the context of investment treaties, which grant extensive property right protections to foreign but not domestic investors.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.207 · 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