Financial development and relationship evolvement among money supply,economic growth and inflation: a comparative study from the U.S. and China

With the rapid development of financial markets, economic financialization degree can no longer be ignored for its influence on the relationship among money supply, economic growth and inflation. Combined with the horizontal comparison of China, this article concentrates on the financial development and evolution from the period of industrialization to economic financialization in the U.S., systematic and comprehensive analysis is first done on the variation of overall economic operation. Then impulse response function based on VAR model is applied to study the dynamic influence of economic financialization degree on the relationship evolvement. The empirical results show that economic financialization makes good explanation of the deviating phenomenon among money supply, economic growth and inflation, and the interactive relationship between fictitious economy and real economy is becoming closer and closer. Furthermore, compared to the U.S., China still belongs to the process of transforming from the period of industrialization to economic financialization.     

金融化一定会损害企业价值吗——基于生命周期视角的实证研究

文章以中国A股市场的制造业企业为样本,实证研究企业金融化对企业价值的影响.研究发现:金融化与企业价值之间存在倒"U"型关系;基于生命周期理论,金融化与企业价值的非线性关系在成长期、衰退期依然显著,在成熟期不显著.最后,产品市场竞争在企业金融化和企业价值之间存在中介效应.本文揭示了金融化对企业价值的非线性影响以及其传导机...     

中国非金融企业金融化的影响因素分析

作为经济金融化微观层面的重要表现,非金融企业金融化现象日益凸显.以2001-2014年我国A股上市的非金融企业为研究对象,借助Eviews6.0软件,运用最小二乘法,从宏观和微观两个层面实证分析我国非金融企业金融化的影响因素.研究表明:企业的金融化程度随着其股东价值最大化观念的增强而加深,企业金融资产持有比例与其主营业务利润率呈U型关系,稳定的宏观经济环境会弱化企业的金融投资行为.     

中国黄金金融化指数的构建与时间演化研究

运用变异系数法、相关系数法、熵值法和Critic法四种赋权方法,构建中国黄金金融化指数,考量中国黄金金融化指数的时间演化.结果发现:随着时间的推移,中国黄金金融化的整体水平不断上升;2008-2015年"储备与支付属性"对黄金金融化的贡献度最高,是推动中国黄金金融化的主要驱动力量.     

实体企业金融化的关键驱动因素:逐利还是避险? ——基于多层因子交互效应面板模型的宏微观分析

本文通过构建多层因子交互效应面板模型,利用沪深两市非金融上市公司数据,综合分析企业微观个体逐利和避险动机以及宏观经济政策不确定性对实体企业金融化的边际驱动效应,并对不同经营状况和不同规模企业进行异质性分析.研究结果表明:对于经营状态较差的企业,其金融化的关键驱动因素是风险规避;经营状态一般的非制造企业则是逐利和避险的双重驱动结果;而经营状态较好的企业主要受到宏观经济政策不确定性因素的影响.从规模来看,小型非国有和大型非制造业企业金融化的关键动机是风险规避,规模一般的非国有企业体现出逐利和避险的双重效应.通过模型估算的宏观影响因子,其总体趋势与宏观经济政策不确定性较为吻合.总的来说,宏观经济政策不确定性和企业固定资产投资风险的增加,主导了实体企业的金融化.     

Facing financialization: The divergent mutations of agricultural cooperatives in postapartheid South Africa

This paper analyses the transformation of the South African (former) grain cooperatives since 1994. These entities played a key role in the institutional architecture of the apartheid regime, ensuring the domination of white commercial farmers over the sector. Within the framework of the deregulation of the economy and the agricultural sector, such entities faced transformations of modern capitalism, especially the growing power of financial actors and markets. Although white commercial farmers still largely retain these inherited structures, these companies are presently being targeted more and more by private takeovers and/or private equity deals. Based on two specific empirical examples of private equity deals affecting South African grain cooperatives, this paper describes this financialization process in practice, in particular by analysing the interaction between financial and agricultural actors and the alliances on the ground that determine its “success.” In doing so, it details the different trajectories of these (former) cooperatives, highlighting the resilience, mutation, and extinction of commercial agriculture in South Africa.     

国资委巡视促进企业“脱虚向实”了吗？来自企业金融化的经验证据

国有企业是实体经济的顶梁柱,如何确保国有企业聚焦主业、防范国有企业“脱实向虚”是国资监管的重要命题。现有研究聚焦于股东异质性对国有企业金融化的影响,但却忽视了国资委巡视这一新兴监督方式的重要作用。基于手工收集的国资委巡视数据,研究发现,国资委巡视显著抑制了国有企业的金融化,促进了国有企业的“脱虚向实”;加强党组织领导、优化公司治理是国资委巡视的重要机制。异质性分析显示,国资委巡视的治理作用在集团内地位较低、外部关注较少以及整改意愿更强的企业中更明显。文章为评估巡视监督的有效性提供了新的视角,也为推动国有企业“脱虚向实”、助力国有企业高质量发展带来有益启示。     

商业信用与实体企业金融化

已有研究表明,商业信用作为实体企业债务融资的一种重要途径,会对企业经营决策产生显著的影响。然而目前尚无文献探究商业信用与实体企业金融化之间的关系。基于此,文章就商业信用对非金融类公司金融化的影响进行了理论分析,并运用2007—2019年A股非金融类上市公司的数据进行了实证检验,结果表明,商业信用对企业金融化具有显著的负向影响。该结论在考察潜在的内生性问题、改变计量模型、替换关键变量、改变样本区间的情形下均具有较强的稳健性。进一步的作用机制检验表明,流动性约束对商业信用与金融化的中间作用机制为"遮掩效应",代理成本对商业信用与金融化的中间作用机制为"中介效应"。研究商业信用对企业金融化的作用环境时发现,在地区市场化环境较好、行业内竞争地位较低的实体企业中,商业信用对企业金融化的抑制效应更加明显。     

Public good,collective action and financial regulation

The economy‐wide liberalization reforms implemented from the 1980s onwards in major capitalist economies had deep impact on financial markets. Public financial regulation has been replaced by self‐regulation, financial innovations proliferated and gave rise to many diversified and complex speculative operations that financialized most economic decisions and actions. Recurrent instabilities and crises became common ground in advanced as well as in emerging market economies and converged on the global systemic crisis in 2007–08, notwithstanding the efficient market doctrine that kept supporting financial liberalization. This crisis raised concerns about the relevance of market‐based financial regulation with regard to the systemic viability of capitalist economies and brought forward the central role of financial regulatory framework in the sustainable working of open societies. This article considers financial stability as a collective action problem through the lens of the literature on the commons and public goods. It seeks to contribute to the development of a relevant paradigm of collective action in the provision of a particular public good, financial stability, through a particular public action, financial regulation. After recalling the broad outlines of the evolution of financial markets and the institutional environment in the last decades, the monetary and financial characteristics of a capitalist economy are presented. The monetary and financial structure turns out to be a public infrastructure. The criticalness of financial transactions for the whole economic society together with the non‐rivalrousness and non‐excludability of financial stability determine the very publicness of the latter. The continuity of financial relations fundamentally needs a viable financial system. However, this is a complex issue as it falls into the classical opposition “private vs public” and calls for a collective action framework consistent with the characteristics of a financialized economy. This article argues that financial stability cannot be ensured through individual‐decision‐based market relations because of the endogenous limits of individual actions and the systemic nature of instabilities they can provoke. A specific treatment of finance as a public utility and of financial stability as a public good is then required. The study on the organization and management of financial markets, namely financial governance issue, ultimately leads to consider financial regulation as a collective action problem that calls for a public supervision framework through an extra‐market macroregulation, apt to allow economy to work in a viable way.     

Global Production Networks and the Private Organization of World Trade

As John R. Commons understood, the role of the firm in providing employment and income distribution is a form of public power (Munkirs and Knoedler 1987). This public power of firms is supported by the laws of the state, which protect private property and enforce market transactions. The Global Production Network (GPN) is a new form of the firm, influenced by information technology to lower “transaction costs” (Coase 1937), as well as international trade regimes, such as the Washington Consensus to improve the ease of world trade and investment. The GPN is globe-scanning, yet private and able to shape the economies and policies of countries. Under the banner of branded products, the lead firm in a supply chain exercises considerable power over subsidiaries, contractors, workers, communities, and countries. By influencing trade relations, GPNs also influence international finance, foreign currency reserves and exchange rates, as well as trade deficits and “race to the bottom” of taxes and environmental protection. Drawing on interdisciplinary research, this topic benefits from an alliance of sociology, business, history, law, and international as well as institutional economics in the AFEE tradition. I draw on the work of leading scholars in the field (Antras 2016; Baldwin 2016; Gereffi 2013; Milberg and Winkler 2013) and analyze the implications for the world trade system, as well as the ongoing political resistance to globalization. These GPNs are no longer “of” their country of origin (Tyson vs. Reich).