The impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on economic growth and income inequality in developing countries, with a focus on regions in Africa and Asia.Drawing on recent data and case studies, it examines how the volume, sectoral focus, and structure of FDI influence GDP growth, environmental outcomes, and income distribution.The analysis reveals that while FDI can be a powerful driver of development, its benefits are not guaranteed.They are contingent upon certain threshold conditions, such as adequate levels of human capital, institutional quality, and government spending.Countries with strong education systems, effective governance, and open trade policies are more likely to experience sustained economic growth and inclusive development from FDI.However, profit repatriation of FDI limits local reinvestment and undermines long-term economic resilience of developing countries, therefore exacerbating existing global inequality.Also, the environmental impacts of FDI are also mixed: while FDI in resource-rich countries often leads to higher CO₂ emissions, investments in diversified economies can support greener outcomes.For developing countries, FDI should not be viewed solely as a financial transaction, but as a potential long-term partnership for sustainable and inclusive growth..
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".