|
|
|
| Research on the Relationship Between Industrial Policy and Corporate Performance |
| Liu Tingting1, Yang Rong1, Gao Kai2 |
1.Department of Economics and Management,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200241,China;
2.School of Management,Shanghai University of Engineering Science,Shanghai 201600,China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This paper takes Chinese A-share listed companies from 2001 to 2017 as the sample,and uses the unbalanced panel model to study the relationship between industrial policies and corporate performance.The study finds that industrial policies can significantly improve corporate performance,and that this effect has continuity and cumulative effects.Compared with state-owned enterprises,industrial policies in non-state-owned enterprises are more effective.Secondly,it further examines the influence mechanisms of industrial policies on corporate performance.Rationality tests find that subsidy,loan,tax and innovation incentive are important transmission mechanisms of industrial policies,while market competition mechanism is only effective in non-state-owned enterprises.Specific to the conduction effect of each mechanism,loan,tax and innovation incentive all contribute to the improvement of corporate performance,market competition only positively affects the performance of non-state-owned enterprises,and the effect of government subsidies is not significant.Finally,the degree of marketization has a positive regulatory effect on the economic effects of industrial policies.
|
|
Received: 08 June 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] CRISCUOLO C,MARTIN R,OVERMAN H.The causal effects of an industrial policy.NBER working paper,2012,No.17842.
[2]孙早,席建成.中国式产业政策的实施效果:产业升级还是短期经济增长[J].中国工业经济,2015(7):52-67.
[3]王克敏,刘静,李晓溪.产业政策、政府支持与公司投资效率研究[J].管理世界,2017(3):113-124,145,188.
[4]AGHION P,DEWATRIPONT M,DU L et al.Industrial policy and competition[J].National bureau of economic research,2012,25(4):80-107.
[5]LAZZARINI S G.Strategizing by the government:Can industrial policy create firm-level competitive advantage[J].Strategic management journal,2015,36:97-112.
[6]ROBINSON J A.Industrial policy and development:a political economy perspective[R].The World Bank,2009.
[7]寇宗来,刘学悦,刘瑾.产业政策导致了产能过剩吗?——基于中国工业行业的经验研究[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2017,59(5):148-161.
[8]姜国华,饶品贵.宏观经济政策与微观企业行为——拓展会计与财务研究新领域[J].会计研究,2011(3):9-18.
[9]陆国庆,王舟,张春宇.中国战略性新兴产业政府创新补贴的绩效研究[J].经济研究,2014,49(7):44-55.
[10]万伦来,郭冬亮.政府补贴、市场进入壁垒对民营企业绩效的影响——基于中国民营上市公司的实证研究[J].工业技术经济,2016,35(9):92-99.
[11]CHEN Donghua,LI Zhen,XIN Fu.Five year plans,China finance and their consequences[J].China journal of accounting research,2017,10 (3):189-226.
[12]祝继高,韩非池,陆正飞.产业政策、银行关联与企业债务融资——基于A股上市公司的实证研究[J].金融研究,2015(3):176-191.
[13]黎文靖,李耀淘.产业政策激励了公司投资吗[J].中国工业经济,2014(5):122-134.
[14]余明桂,范蕊,钟慧洁.中国产业政策与企业技术创新[J].中国工业经济,2016(12):5-22.
[15]刘慧龙,吴联生.制度环境、所有权性质与企业实际税率[J].管理世界,2014(4):42-52.
[16]白雪洁,宋莹.环境规制、技术创新与中国火电行业的效率提升[J].中国工业经济,2009(8):68-77.
[17]KLEER R.Government R&D subsidies as a signal for private investors[J].Research policy,2010,39(10):1361-1374.
[18]ARROW K J.The economic implications of learning by doing[J].Review of economic studies,1962,29(3):155-173.
[19]冯发贵,李隋.产业政策实施过程中财政补贴与税收优惠的作用与效果[J].税务研究,2017(5):51-58.
[20]李小荣,张瑞君.股权激励影响风险承担:代理成本还是风险规避[J].会计研究,2014(1):57-63,95.
[21]贾生华,陈文强.国有控股、市场竞争与股权激励效应——基于倾向得分匹配法的实证研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2015,45(5):101-118.
[22]吴延兵.R&D与生产率——基于中国制造业的实证研究[J].经济研究,2006 (11):60-71.
[23]FALK M.Quantile estimates of the impact of R&D intensity on firm performance[J].Small business economics,2012,39(1):19-37.
[24]颉茂华,王瑾,刘冬梅.环境规制、技术创新与企业经营绩效[J].南开管理评论,2014,17(6):106-113.
[25]尹美群,盛磊,李文博.高管激励、创新投入与公司绩效——基于内生性视角的分行业实证研究[J].南开管理评论,2018,21(1):109-117.
[26]夏立军,方轶强.政府控制、治理环境与公司价值——来自中国证券市场的经验证据[J].经济研究,2005(5):40-51.
[27]王小鲁,樊纲,马光荣.中国分省企业经营环境指数2017年报告[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2017.
[28]付文林,赵永辉.税收激励、现金流与企业投资结构偏向[J].经济研究,2014,49(5):19-33.
[29]余东华,邱璞.产业政策偏好、社会责任属性与民营企业绩效[J].财经问题研究,2017(7):20-27.
[30]汝毅,郭晨曦,吕萍.高管股权激励、约束机制与对外直接投资速率[J].财经研究,2016(3):4-15.
[31]林毅夫,刘培林.自生能力和国企改革[J].经济研究,2001(9):60-70.
[32]江飞涛,李晓萍.直接干预市场与限制竞争:中国产业政策的取向与根本缺陷[J].中国工业经济,2010(9):26-36. |
|
|
|
2019, Vol. 0 
