The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FDI AND TAXATION: A META-STUDY
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we extend former meta-analyses on FDI and taxation in three ways. First, we add 16 recent publications. Second, we code additional meta-regressor variables addressing important issues in research on FDI and taxation. Third, we refer to the sophisticated meta-analytical methodology and present a coherent strategy to choose the meta-regression estimator most suitable for the meta-data at hand. As compared to prior surveys, the meta-analysis is thus based on a much broader methodological basis and a considerably richer meta-data set. The median tax semi-elasticity of FDI based on 704 primary estimates is 2.49 in absolute terms. The precision weighted average of the full sample of semi-elasticities is 2.55, again in absolute terms. Moreover, our meta-analysis shows that there is a publication bias in the primary literature. Meta-regressions show that studies based on aggregate data report systematically larger semi-elasticities than firm-level analyses, that integrating bilateral tax regulations into effective tax rates leads to more effective measurement of adverse tax incentives on foreign investment, and that tax effects are not compensated by public spending.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
McFadden, D. L. (1972) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 14,203
A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures
Tiebout, C. M. (1956) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/257839 · Cited by 13,222
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
How Taxing is Corruption on International Investors?
Wei, S.-J. (2000) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465300558533 · Cited by 2,789
MODELING THE CHOICE OF RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
McFadden, D. L. (1978) · Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · Cited by 2,456
Cited by
Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2014) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095 · Cited by 916
ARE ALL ECONOMIC FACTS GREATLY EXAGGERATED? THEORY COMPETITION AND SELECTIVITY
Doucouliagos, C., & Stanley, T. D. (2013) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00706.x · Cited by 276
Metadata
- Authors
- Feld, L. P., & Heckemeyer, J. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Surveys
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-02-21
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 233-272
- ISSN
- 0950-0804 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3125408726
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 114
- FWCI
- 58.35
- 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: FDI AND TAXATION: A META-STUDY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00674.x
- The paper
- Feld, L. P., & Heckemeyer, J. H. (2011). FDI AND TAXATION: A META-STUDY. Journal of Economic Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00674.x
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.