Regulating and supervising pension funds to finance infrastructure in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reviews the structure and regulations of African pension fund systems, focusing on Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Francophone countries. It also examines key trends in the structure and regulation of pension funds in other countries and regions including Australia, Canada, the European Union, the Netherlands and the United States. It then provides some preliminary recommendations on how best to improve the regulation and supervision of pension fund systems in Africa, with a view to promoting long-term investments, especially in infrastructure projects. Some of the key recommendations are: Introduce risked-based investment regulations with clearly defined standards of accountability for pension fund fiduciaries and investment managers; Remove barriers to pension fund efforts to diversify their investments. Since it takes time to move from a rule-based to risk-based regulatory system, some portfolio limits are likely to remain in place in most countries; Establish infrastructure as an asset class with its own investment limits. Investment in infrastructure and other long-term assets can be encouraged in rule-based systems if such assets are identified as an asset class and a specific limit is established for them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".