If I sound that way to you, it's probably because of your own biases.
> The paper is very upfront that more studies should be done in other countries:
You aren't even addressing the part of the paper I criticized. You haven't even acknowledged it exists, but you expect to, what, convince me or others that I'm wrong by throwing random quotes my way and calling me names?
In the section 3.1 Institutional Context, the paper explicitly compares the bank and the country to firms in the United States and the United States respectively over a handful of values. There's no explanation given for why the United States specifically was compared against nor is rationale given for the selection or exclusion of points of comparison. A reader has to conclude that they felt these were the relevant points of comparison because these were the things likely to affect their results.
This necessarily implies generalization. Any other interpretation can only make sense if we disbelieve their results or find their comparison criteria between firms and countries lacking.