The Determinants and Growth Effects of Foreign Direct Investment: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the factors determining inward foreign direct investment (FDI) and its effects on productivity, ultimately contributing to economic growth. Using a two-step generalized method of moments (GMM) approach, we analyzed a panel of 84 countries, comprising 34 OECD and 50 non-OECD countries, from 2010 to 2019. The findings suggest that FDI positively impacts productivity and benefits both OECD and non-OECD countries. Economic freedom plays a significant role in attracting FDI, particularly in OECD countries, and contributes to economic growth in non-OECD countries. However, economic freedom alone does not guarantee strong economic growth in OECD countries but significantly enhances growth in non-OECD countries. The results also highlight that only economies with robust economic infrastructure and development levels benefit more from FDI. It appears that FDI by itself has no direct effect on output growth. Instead, the impact of FDI is contingent on the level of economic freedom in the host countries. This paper presents a key finding on how policy decisions influence the effects of foreign capital investment on productivity and income. It indicates that countries promoting economic freedom can more effectively leverage productivity gains from FDI.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".