Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 708

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us?

Eichengreen, B.·2001·The World Bank Economic Review
DOI 10.1093/wber/15.3.341
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Capital account liberalization, it is fair to say, remains one of the most controversial and least understood policies of our day. One reason is that different theoretical perspectives have very different implications for the desirability of liberalizing capital flows. Another is that empirical analysis has failed to yield conclusive results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/wber/15.3.341

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 708

Metadata

Authors
Eichengreen, B.
Venue
The World Bank Economic Review
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001-10-01
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
341-365
ISSN
  • 0258-6770 (ISSN-L)
  • 1564-698X
DOI
10.1093/wber/15.3.341
OpenAlex
W2157185050
Cited by
708
References
48
FWCI
54.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/wber/15.3.341
The paper
Eichengreen, B. (2001). Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us? The World Bank Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/15.3.341

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.