MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416977727 · doi:10.1177/00104140251400342

The Archipelago Capitalism of Citizenship-By-Investment

2025· article· en· W4416977727 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Džankić, Mira Seyfettinoglu, Ayelet Shachar, Maarten Vink, Luuk van der Baaren

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Political Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMax-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung Multireligiöser und Multiethnischer GesellschaftenEuropean University Institute
KeywordsCitizenshipCapitalismLeverage (statistics)ArchipelagoPoliticsPhenomenonPaymentState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citizenship-by-investment (CBI) programs, granting citizenship in return for financial payment or investment, have become a global phenomenon in recent years. The workings of these exceptional programs have caused controversy in real-life politics, ranging from protests, to the downfall of politicians, and to punitive bilateral and international measures. Even so, knowledge on why countries would put their citizenship up for sale has remained limited. This study combines insights from political science and legal theory to develop an original approach to understand states’ propensity to adopt investor citizenship policies as part of the offshore world, or the legal spaces of ‘archipelago capitalism’. We leverage a novel global longitudinal CBI dataset (1960–2023) to probe the empirical plausibility of this argument. In line with our expectations, we find that microstates, middle-income countries, and tax havens are more likely to implement CBI programs. CBI supply reflects a contemporary form of small state ingenuity.

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)0.002
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Political StudiesSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207