市场准入管制与企业全要素生产率：来自负面清单的证据

本文以市场准入负面清单管理制度试点政策作为市场准入管制放松的准自然实验,构建交叠双重差分模型,考察市场准入管制如何影响企业全要素生产率。研究发现：负面清单管理制度的实施有助于促进企业全要素生产率提升,在排除同期重大政策干扰、缓解自变量识别以及考虑不可观测因素等一系列稳健性检验后结论仍然成立。市场准入负面清单管理制度提升企业全要素生产率的核心渠道在于改善要素市场配置效率和促进产品市场竞争。在改善要素市场配置效率渠道方面,企业全要素生产率提升主要得益于市场准入负面清单管理制度对资本要素市场扭曲和金融市场抑制的矫正。异质性检验发现,市场准入负面清单管理制度对企业全要素生产率的正向影响在市场分割程度严重、地方保护水平和制度性交易成本高的企业中更为明显。本文研究表明降低市场行政准入壁垒对于推动中国经济高质量发展具有重要作用,这为加快建设全国统一大市场提供了理论依据。     

FDI技术溢出渠道与中国制造业生产率增长研究:基于面板数据的分析

本文使用基于DEA的Malmquist指数方法分析了中国制造业全要素生产率(TFP)及其分解变量技术进步和技术效率的变化规律;利用制造业内资部门2000~2005年的行业层面板数据,在控制了研发和出口交货值两个变量的基础上,考察了FDI水平关联和前、后关联对全要素生产率及其分解变量的影响。我们发现研发与出口交货值对生产率存在正的影响,FDI总体上对内资企业产生了正向技术溢出效应,而且更多地是由后向关联促进技术进步带来的;前向关联没有产生技术溢出效应;水平关联与前、后向关联技术溢出的实现方式不同,主要通过技术效率渠道促进全要素生产率的提高。分组回归结果表明,FDI技术溢出渠道在技术水平、行业集中度与出口依存度等行业分组指标下存在明显不同的传导机制。     

异质性企业全要素生产率与要素配置效率——基于1999～2007年中国制造业企业微观数据的实证分析

文章基于1998~2007年中国全部国有及规模以上制造业企业微观数据,使用OP法估算了企业全要素生产率TFP。通过对企业全要素生产率分布特点的深入研究,分析我国制造业要素配置效率的状况:2001年入世后,中国进入了全面快速的贸易自由化阶段,短期通过企业的退出和进入机制促进了要素在制造业行业内、企业间快速自由流动,要素配置效率提高,由此促进生产率提高。但是长期来看,贸易自由化没有促进要素配置效率的明显提高,有些行业甚至出现倒退。国有企业的生产率最低,主要原因在于国有企业要素配置效率最低,民营企业生产率居中,要素配置效率却是最高的,再次证实了民营经济是我国最为活跃的经济主体。出口企业比非出口企业有更高效的要素配置效率,因而生产率高于非出口企业,这跟Melitz(2003)的理论预期是一致的,不存在"生产率悖论"的现象。从东中西区域看,东部地区企业生产率均值最高,要素配置效率也最高,但区域之间的差距正在缩小。     

比较优势与制造业企业全要素生产率:行业比较优势真的很重要吗

在新-新贸易理论的基础上,利用我国2002-2011年的企业微观数据,通过倾向评分匹配和倍差法,研究企业转向比较优势行业对制造业全要素生产率的影响。研究结果表明：企业转向比较优势行业能够显著的提高制造业企业全要素生产率,采用不同的方法进行研究结果仍然是稳健的;从企业异质性的估计结果来看,民营企业、加工贸易为主的企业以及出口产品多样性的企业转向比较优势行业更有利于全要素生产率的提高;在企业转向比较优势行业时,全要素生产率随着出口阅历的增加而提高,但是出口强度的影响不显著;研发投入的影响不明显,但是人力资本是企业创新要素实现的决定性因素。     

环境管制成本与环境全要素生产率研究

本文利用1998～2010年中国工业36个两位码行业投入产出数据,利用方向性距离函数方法和Malmquist-Luenberger指数方法研究了环境管制成本和环境全要素生产率。研究发现,中国工业行业的环境管制成本较高,履行排放承诺,中国经济付出较大的代价;比较环境全要素生产率和传统全要素生产率发现,所有行业平均意义上前者小于后者,但两者的假设检验不显著;环境全要素生产率本身是上升的,环境全要素生产率的增长主要来自于技术进步的提高;在环境全要素生产率的收敛分析中,发现存在着绝对收敛趋势。     

异质性企业全要素生产率与要素配置效率——基于1999～2007年中国制造业企业微观数据的实证分析北大核心CSSCISSCI

文章基于1998～2007年中国全部国有及规模以上制造业企业微观数据,使用OP法估算了企业全要素生产率TFP。通过对企业全要素生产率分布特点的深入研究,分析我国制造业要素配置效率的状况：2001年入世后,中国进入了全面快速的贸易自由化阶段,短期通过企业的退出和进入机制促进了要素在制造业行业内、企业间快速自由流动,要素配置效率提高,由此促进生产率提高。但是长期来看,贸易自由化没有促进要素配置效率的明显提高,有些行业甚至出现倒退。国有企业的生产率最低,主要原因在于国有企业要素配置效率最低,民营企业生产率居中,要素配置效率却是最高的,再次证实了民营经济是我国最为活跃的经济主体。出口企业比非出口企业有更高效的要素配置效率,因而生产率高于非出口企业,这跟Melitz（2003）的理论预期是一致的,不存在“生产率悖论”的现象。从东中西区域看,东部地区企业生产率均值最高,要素配置效率也最高,但区域之间的差距正在缩小。     

资本市场开放与全要素生产率：基于国内金融市场与机制转换的双重逻辑

基于国内金融市场和作用机制转换的双重视角,文章选取1999～2019年中国A股上市公司作为研究样本,考察资本市场开放水平对企业全要素生产率的作用机制及其制约因素。研究结果发现,资本市场开放水平的提高能够显著提升企业全要素生产率。进一步分析表明,成熟的银行系统,大规模、高流动性和低集中度的股票市场环境,完善的要素市场、法治环境及新会计准则,更有利于释放资本市场开放对全要素生产率的提升作用。机制检验发现,资本市场开放可通过缓解企业融资约束提升全要素生产率,以“沪港通”为代表的新一轮高水平开放还能进一步激发股价信号、风险配置和公司治理机制。文章验证渐进式的资本市场开放路径是适应中国金融市场环境的理性选择,也为实现更高水平的资本市场开放以及提升金融服务于实体经济的能力提供重要的理论基础和政策启示。     

资本市场交易制度完善有助于提升企业生产效率吗？——基于融资融券的准自然实验

本文以我国分阶段逐步扩容实施融资融券制度为研究场景,考察了资本市场交易制度的完善如何影响上市公司生产效率,为资本市场发展促进实体经济转型升级提供了经验证据。研究结果显示,卖空机制的引入提升了标的企业全要素生产率。路径检验显示,卖空机制的引入主要通过提高投资效率、提升经营效率、促进研发创新这三条路径作用于企业全要素生产率。异质性分析表明上述效应在国有企业、高新技术行业企业、媒体关注度更高及分析师跟踪程度更大的企业中更加显著。基于交易量的分析发现卖空交易强度越大,对企业全要素生产率的促进作用越明显,而融资交易则会抑制企业全要素生产率的提升。本文的研究有助于从“卖空机制引入”这一视角理解资本市场交易制度的完善对实体经济高质量发展的促进作用,从而为我国进一步深化金融市场改革提供了理论依据。     

中国文化产业全要素生产率行业异质性研究——基于DEA-Malmquist指数法的分析

本文基于DEA-Malmquist指数模型对2013-2017年间我国文化产业三大子行业的全要素生产率的变动情况进行了实证分析。研究发现:我国文化产业三大子行业的全要素生产率存在行业异质性,文化服务业的全要素生产率最高,其次是文化制造业,文化批发与零售业最低;三大行业全要素生产率增长的驱动因素有明显的异质性,文化制造业和文化服务业全要素生产率的改善主要依赖技术进步,文化批发和零售业则受到技术效率和技术进步的共同制约;文化产业的三大子行业表现出不同的区域差异,文化制造业、文化批发和零售业在中、西部地区的全要素生产率高于东部地区,文化服务业的全要素生产率则呈现明显的东、中、西梯度差异。     

政府补贴、研发投入与全要素生产率

政府补贴有助于企业实现特定的经济目标,对企业研发投入和全要素生产率具有重要影响。选取 2013-2020 年中国496 家制造业上市企业数据,探究政府补贴、研发投入和全要素生产率三者之间的作用机制。运用 ACF 法测算全要素生产率,重点分析融资约束的双重门槛作用以及股权集中度的调节作用。结论表明：以融资约束为门限变量,政府补贴对研发投入的影响效应在不同门限区间中呈现显著变化;企业研发投入对全要素生产率起到正向促进作用,股权集中度在研发投入与全要素生产率之间具有显著正向调节作用。实证分析不仅对政府补贴、研发投入和全要素生产率的深入研究具有重要理论价值,同时对政府运用财政补贴政策具有启示作用。     

Trade policy uncertainty,development strategy,and export behavior: Evidence from listed industrial companies in China

On the basis of new structural economics theory and heterogeneity of firm viability, this study analyzes the effect of trade policy uncertainty on firm export behavior using panel data of Chinese listed companies in the industrial sector. Empirical results show that the high uncertainty of trade policy significantly inhibits the extensive and intensive margins of firm export, while heterogeneity effect occurs across firms with different levels of viability. The development strategy that violates comparative advantage strengthens the negative impact of trade policy uncertainty on firm export. Despite their correlation with viability, the type of ownership, total factor productivity, and long-term loan are not suitable proxies for firm viability. Under high uncertainty of trade policy, export market diversification can alleviate the restraining effect of development strategy on firm export, whereas firms in regions with high industrial-oriented development tend to be vulnerable to cost shocks, thus reducing export market diversification. Findings present important implications for emerging market countries to enact better international trade and economic policies.     

业绩承诺变更会影响企业研发费用操纵吗?

以 2011-2022年A股并购业绩承诺事件为研究对象,探讨了业绩承诺变更对研发费用操纵的影响。研究发现:业绩承诺变更加剧了上市公司研发费用操纵现象,且这一影响是通过激发高管机会主义、降低商业信用融资能力实现的;异质性检验发现,业绩承诺变更对研发费用操纵的影响在关联并购事件、主并方为国有企业、以及分析师关注程度较低的企业中更为显著;动机和经济后果检验发现,业绩承诺变更主要通过激发高管的政策迎合动机提高了研发费用操纵水平,而该行为使得企业获取了更多的税收优惠和政府补助。     

The productivity impacts of energy efficiency programs in developing countries: Evidence from iron and steel firms in China

We study the impact of a national energy efficiency program on total factor productivity (TFP) growth in firms in China's iron and steel industry. Using detailed firm-level survey data and multiple approaches to estimate program effects, we find participating firms experienced greater annualized TFP change. Our base specification estimates the program increased annual TFP growth by 3.1 percentage points, implying an annual private benefit of 148.7 million RMB/year per firm, with approximately equal contributions from technical change and scale efficiency change. Our results suggest that firms undervalued energy efficiency investments prior to the start of the program.     

The impact of tariff reductions on firm dynamics and productivity in China: Does market-oriented transition matter?

This paper investigates the impact of trade liberalization on firm dynamics and productivity in the context of dramatic tariff reductions after China's accession to the WTO, and how this impact varies across regions with different marketization levels. Our results show that (a) on average, output tariff reductions tend to reduce firm entry rate and increase firm exit rate, while input tariff reductions help to increase both firm entry rate and exit rate, furthermore, regional marketization strengthens the impact of trade liberalization on firm dynamics; (b) trade liberalization exerts greater impact on the likelihood of exit for the least productive firms while it tends to reduce the probability of exit for the more productive firms, with regional marketization strengthening such a reallocation process of trade liberalization; (c) firm dynamics effect contributes approximately 43% of the growth of productivity, and it (especially the firm exit effect) is an important channel through which trade liberalization fosters productivity growth, and domestic market reform is found to strengthen such an impact.     

Do Market Pressures Induce Economic Efficiency? The Case of Slovenian Manufacturing, 1994–2001

Using a unique longitudinal data set on all manufacturing firms in Slovenia from 1994 to 2001, this article analyzes how firm efficiency changed in response to changing competitive pressures associated with the transition to market. Results show that the period was one of atypically rapid growth of total factor productivity (TFP). The rise in firm efficiency occurs across almost all industries and firm types: large or small, state or private, domestic or foreign owned. Changes in firm ownership type have no direct impact on firm efficiency. However, increased market competition related to rising market share of private firms, new market entrants, foreign‐owned firms, and international trade raises TFP across all firms in an industry, whether private or state owned. In addition, competitive pressures that sort out inefficient firms of all types and retain the most efficient, coupled with the entry of new private firms that are at least as efficient as surviving firms, prove to be the major source of TFP gains. Results strongly confirm that market competition fosters efficiency.     

The Impact of Economic Reform on Productivity Growth in Chinese Industry: A Case of Xiamen Special Economic Zone

China's industrial and trade reforms were expected to stimulate growth in output and welfare by increasing the capacity of industry to absorb surplus factors of production, and by utilizing labour, capital, energy and materials more efficiently. The impact of the special economic zone reform policies on productivity and growth is assessed by studies of China's overall industrial sector performance and case studies in Xiamen and Shanghai Beijing, which is not subject to special policy initiatives, is used as a control. Although there were data limitations, several conclusions may be drawn. An increase in total factor productivity was found to have occurred in Xiamen during the reform period, but the creation of the special economic zone does not appear to have had a significant impact on productivity. Productivity performance in Beijing's state-owned industry was considerably poorer than that of total Xiamen industry, including state, collective and firms jointly owned with foreign investors, and was also lower than the productivity performance of Xiamen's state sector. The productivity performance of Xiamen's joint ventures and collectively owned firms was, however, considerably superior to the state sectors in both cities. Due to data constraints, the analysis of productivity in Shanghai was for a shorter period. Most of Shanghai's state-owned industry did better than the state-owned sector in Beijing but did not perform as well as the non-State sector in Xiamen over this period. Factor productivity in Shanghai industry was stagnant, Beijing's industrial productivity generally declined, but Xiamen's productivity improved considerably over the decade. One of the major strengths of this study is its access to new and more accurate disaggregated price indices to deflate capital investments on an industry by industry basis. Hence, the availability of the new capital stock deflator series should improve the total factor productivity estimates considerably.     

Market potential,firm exports and profit: Which market do the Chinese firms profit from?

This paper examines the effects of market potential on Chinese firms' exports and profit by using data from the Chinese industrial enterprise database and The China City Statistical Yearbooks during 1998–2007. We find that international market potential has positive effects on firm exports, but negative effects on firm profit, while domestic market potential has opposite impacts. This finding suggests that Chinese firms' profit mainly stems from the domestic market. Moreover, the adverse impact of international market potential on firm profit diminishes with the increase of firm productivity, and some firms with higher productivity may benefit from the expansion of foreign markets.     

Why Do Chinese Private Enterprises Seek Outward Foreign Direct Investment?

China is currently in a period of economic transformation and the reform of the factor market still lags behind that of the product market. This study explores the reasons causing China's private enterprise to expand abroad from the perspective of domestic factor market imperfection. Using data for Chinese listed firms between 2002 and 2020, it examines whether outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) has been undertaken by private enterprises as a response to domestic factor market imperfection. It finds that private enterprises located in regions with greater factor market imperfection have had a greater tendency to engage in OFDI. This effect has been more pronounced among firms with high productivity or high innovation capability, and among medium and small private enterprises.     

The impact of technology identification policy on firm innovation: Evidence from China

Using firm-level data of companies listed on China's A-share market from 2006 to 2017, this research applies a difference-in-differences (DID) empirical method to test whether the state policy in China used for identifying firms as being “high-tech” enhances their innovative capabilities. This paper presents three main findings. First, multiple robustness tests confirm that the state technology identification policy does improve the total number of patent applications as well as the number of patent invention applications. Second, government subsidy is an important channel through which this policy affects a firm's innovation capabilities. Third, this policy has a more prominent and positive influence on the innovation capabilities of firms located in regions where there exist a higher rate of taxation in addition and relatively more developed products and factor markets. Fourth, we conduct a flexible back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that the high-tech firm identification policy does improve the overall level of social welfare. The empirical results of this paper have far-reaching implications for China's innovation policies.     

Technology spillovers from Chinese outward direct investment: The case of Ethiopia

The present study uses firm survey data of 1033 manufacturing firms operating in Ethiopia in 2011 to examine the impact of Chinese outbound direct investment on the productivity of domestic firms. Particularly, we attempt to answer two questions. Firstly, are Chinese-owned (henceforth foreign) firms more productive than local ones? Secondly, does the presence of foreign firms generate technology spillovers on domestic firms operating in the same industry? Our empirical results show that foreign firms are more productive and that their presence has different spillover effects on the productivity of domestic firms. In particular, we find that domestic firms with higher absorptive capacity experience positive spillovers, while those with low absorptive capacity witness negative spillover. We also find that small firms and non-exporting firms benefit more from spillovers than do other types of domestic firms. In this study, instrumental variables are used to address the potential endogeneity between foreign firm presence and domestic firm productivity.