Reassessing the Role of Institutional Quality in Explaining Capital Inflows from 2000 to 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International capital does not move from rich to poor countries, a fact that has challenged economists for years because this contradicts the neoclassical theoretical assumption that capital is expected to flow from rich to poor countries. In real life, capital inflows to rich countries are higher than capital inflows to poor countries. Researchers found that institutional quality was the main explanation for capital movements from 1970 to 2000. However, no studies have investigated the 2000-2020 period, which spans two decades and includes a major event in the financial markets, the 2008 financial crisis, which could have altered capital inflows. This study thus reexamines the role of institutional quality in explaining foreign capital inflows from 2000 to 2020 using ordinary least squares regression. The results indicate that institutional quality has a positive and significant impact on international capital inflows. Even after two instrumental variable regressions are implemented using the European mortality rate and ultraviolet radiation rate as instruments, institutional quality remains positive and highly significant at the 1% level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".