4.6 Article

The resilient economic impact of CPEC and future of MNCs: Evidence from Pakistan

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.912975

关键词

CPEC; Pakistan; economic corridor; economic development; infrastructure innovation; transportation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article examines the developmental collaboration under CPEC and finds that, except for GDP growth and poverty alleviation, all other factors related to economic development have a positive relationship with CPEC development. The results validate the hypothesis and provide guidelines for effective policies to support CPEC.
This article examines the developmental collaboration under CPEC to see if the stated scenario of developed-country progressive cooperation with developing countries holds true on the ground. The economic development of countries is determined by their economic relationships with other countries including megaprojects like CPEC which interlink countries geographically, socially, and economically. The present study has adopted a mixed method technique and the data for this study was gathered using questionnaires and one-on-one interviews with respondents. Furthermore, Pearson correlation, reliability, and KMO were used for analysis. The findings revealed that except for GDP growth and poverty alleviation, all dimensions of resilient economic development such as infrastructure development, investment, economic growth, employment, transportation and knowledge transfer initiatives have positive relationship with CPEC development. Our findings reveal that the GDP and welfare of both Pakistan and China will improve by a maximum of 0.3 percent as a result of transportation innovation. Moreover, the results of the study positively validate the hypothesis. These findings provide policymakers with guidelines for establishing effective policies to support the mega-plan CPEC which will boost global economic growth in the region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据