Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2026, Vol. 552 Issue (6): 20-37    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
开“前门”是否有助堵“后门”?——地方政府专项债务发行对隐性债务举借的影响
孟源祎, 聂卓, 马光荣, 赵耀红
Does “Opening the Front Door” Help “Close the Back Door”? The Impact of Local Government Special Bond Issuance on Implicit Debt Accumulation
MENG Yuanyi, NIE Zhuo, MA Guangrong, ZHAO Yaohong
School of Public Finance and Taxation, Capital University of Economics and Business; School of International Trade and Economics, University of International Business and Economics; School of Finance, Renmin University of China; School of Government, University of International Business and Economics
下载:  PDF (906KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 本文基于2017—2022年地级市数据,研究地方专项债务发行对隐性债务举借的影响。结果发现,地方政府新增专项债发行减少了隐性债务规模,但每1元新增专项债发行仅带来0.72元的隐性债务下降。进一步利用融资平台承接专项债项目的数据分析发现,专项债项目的配套融资设计激励了地方政府增加隐性债务举借,使得专项债务对隐性债务的“替代效应”未达到1∶1。本文的研究表明,在增加专项债额度以满足地方政府合理举债需求的同时,完善专项债项目配套融资管理,避免产生新增隐性债务,真正建立起同高质量发展相适应的政府债务管理长效机制。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
孟源祎
聂卓
马光荣
赵耀红
关键词:  地方政府专项债  地方隐性债务  配套融资    
Summary:  In recent years, the rapid growth of China's public debt, particularly the persistent expansion of implicit debt, has sparked concerns regarding systemic financial risks. To address this, the central government has sought to “open the front door” by issuing special bonds to meet local governments' legitimate financing needs and curb their reliance on irregular debt. However, the effectiveness of these special bonds in curbing implicit debt remains unclear. While existing research largely focuses on debt swaps for existing local government financial vehicles (LGFV) bonds, there is a lack of systematic study on how new special bonds, designed to fund capital expenditure, influence the accumulation of implicit debt. Exploring this issue is crucial for optimizing the debt management system and balancing economic stability with risk prevention.
This paper investigates whether issuing new local government special bonds effectively “closes the back door” of implicit debt by “opening the front door.” It identifies three core mechanisms: the substitution effect, where special bonds replace high-cost implicit debt; the matching effect, where projects partially funded by special bonds necessitate additional LGFV financing, potentially driving up implicit debt; and the implicit guarantee effect, where bond issuance reinforces expectations of government bailouts and subsequently influences the cost and scale of implicit debt. The paper employs empirical analysis to evaluate the relative significance of these mechanisms in practice.
This paper empirically examines the impact of new special bond issuance on implicit debt from 2017 to 2022, using city, LGFV, and bond-level data sourced from municipal final accounts and the WIND database. To address endogeneity, we construct a Bartik instrumental variable (IV) based on the sectoral distribution of local state-owned enterprise investment in 2016 and provincial-level changes in special bond allocations, which satisfies the requirements for relevance and exogeneity.
Our study reveals four primary findings. First, at the aggregate level, an increase in new special bonds does indeed reduce implicit debt accumulation. For every 1 RMB increase in special bonds, implicit debt decreases by 0.72 RMB. This indicates that the “substitution effect” is the dominant mechanism, though it falls short of a one-to-one substitution. Second, mechanism analysis confirms the existence of a positive effect that partially offsets the “front door” policy's efficacy, characterized by a significant expansion in the interest-bearing debt of the specific LGFVs undertaking these projects. Third, by analyzing the impact on LGFV bond pricing, we distinguish between the “matching effect” and the “implicit guarantee effect,” finding that the positive impact on implicit debt arises primarily from the “matching effect.” Finally, spillover effects among LGFVs indicate that when certain vehicles within a city undertake special bond projects, the implicit debt of other vehicles decreases, confirming that the substitution effect prevails among peer LGFVs within the same city.
Based on these findings, this paper offers three policy recommendations. First, continue to widen the “front door” for local government borrowing. According to macroeconomic performance, moderately increasing special bond quotas can meet legitimate funding needs and dampen the incentive for implicit borrowing at the source. Second, improve the matching financing system for special bonds. Given the limited revenue potential of some projects, local governments should increase the ratio of proprietary fiscal funds to reduce reliance on market-based leverage and enhance project screening to prevent the “packaging” of ineligible projects to obtain irregular financing. Third, firmly “close the back door” by accelerating the market-oriented transformation of LGFVs. It is essential to sever the excessive financing dependence between the government and LGFVs, fostering their development into self-sustaining entities while institutionalizing accountability for implicit debt to ensure that the “front door” policy replaces existing debt without fueling new risks.
This paper contributes to the literature by evaluating the actual effectiveness of new special bonds in controlling implicit debt following the implementation of the new Budget Law. Furthermore, it expands the study of intergovernmental fiscal relations into the realm of project-specific matching financing, revealing the spillover effects inherent in this institutional design. Finally, by providing micro-level evidence on the internal mechanisms of fiscal management and debt expansion, this study offers new insights into the logic of China's local public debt growth and proposes refined policy approaches for the debt regulatory framework.
Keywords:  Local Government Special Bonds    Local Government Implicit Debt    Matching Finance
JEL分类号:  H74   H81   H77  
基金资助: * 本文感谢国家自然科学基金青年项目(72403044)、教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目(25JZD015)、首都经济贸易大学新入职青年教师科研启动基金项目(XRZ2025015)的资助。感谢匿名审稿人的宝贵意见,文责自负。
通讯作者:  聂 卓,经济学博士,讲师,对外经济贸易大学国际经济贸易学院,E-mail:niezhuo@uibe.edu.cn.   
作者简介:  孟源祎,经济学博士,讲师,首都经济贸易大学财政税务学院,E-mail:mengyuanyi@cueb.edu.cn.
马光荣,经济学博士,教授,中国人民大学财政金融学院,E-mail:grma@ruc.edu.cn.
赵耀红,经济学博士,讲师,对外经济贸易大学政府管理学院,E-mail:zncdzyh@163.com.
引用本文:    
孟源祎, 聂卓, 马光荣, 赵耀红. 开“前门”是否有助堵“后门”?——地方政府专项债务发行对隐性债务举借的影响[J]. 金融研究, 2026, 552(6): 20-37.
MENG Yuanyi, NIE Zhuo, MA Guangrong, ZHAO Yaohong. Does “Opening the Front Door” Help “Close the Back Door”? The Impact of Local Government Special Bond Issuance on Implicit Debt Accumulation. Journal of Financial Research, 2026, 552(6): 20-37.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2026/V552/I6/20
[1]曹光宇、刘晨冉、周黎安等,2020,《财政压力与地方政府融资平台的兴起》,《金融研究》第5期,第59~76页。
[2]曹婧、毛捷和薛熠,2019,《城投债为何持续增长:基于新口径的实证分析》,《财贸经济》第5期,第5~22页。
[3]范子英,2020,《财政转移支付与人力资本的代际流动性》,《中国社会科学》第9期,第48~67+205页。
[4]范子英和张军,2013,《转移支付、公共品供给与政府规模的膨胀》,《世界经济文汇》第4期,第1~19页。
[5]龚强、王俊和贾珅,2011,《财政分权视角下的地方政府债务研究:一个综述》,《经济研究》第7期,第144~156页。
[6]高跃光和范子英,2021,《财政转移支付、教育投入与长期受教育水平》,《财贸经济》第9期,第20~34页。
[7]郭玉清、何杨和李龙,2016,《救助预期、公共池激励与地方政府举债融资的大国治理》,《经济研究》第3期,第81~95页。
[8]冀云阳和付文林,2018,《项目制治理模式与地方政府债务扩张》,《财经研究》第10期,第38~52页。
[9]吕冰洋、毛捷和马光荣,2018,《分税与转移支付结构:专项转移支付为什么越来越多?》,《管理世界》第4期,第25~39+187页。
[10]梁若冰和王群群,2021,《地方债管理体制改革与企业融资困境缓解》,《经济研究》第4期,第60~76页。
[11]吕炜、周佳音和陆毅,2019,《理解央地财政博弈的新视角——来自地方债发还方式改革的证据》,《中国社会科学》第10期,第134~159+206~207页。
[12]李永友和张子楠,2017,《转移支付提高了政府社会性公共品供给激励吗?》,《经济研究》第1期,第119~133页。
[13]马光荣、郭庆旺和刘畅,2016,《财政转移支付结构与地区经济增长》,《中国社会科学》第9期,第105~125+207~208页。
[14]毛捷、刘潘和吕冰洋,2019,《地方公共债务增长的制度基础——兼顾财政和金融的视角》,《中国社会科学》第9期,第45~67+205页。
[15]缪小林和伏润民,2015,《权责分离、政绩利益环境与地方政府债务超常规增长》,《财贸经济》第4期,第17~31页。
[16]聂卓、王梓旭和毛捷,2023,《举债问责与隐性担保:来自城投债交易利差的证据》,《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》第7期,第194~206页。
[17]钱一蕾、陈姗姗、钟宁桦和解咪,2023,《地方政府债券对城投债券发行规模与定价的影响》,《财贸经济》第7期,第22~38页。
[18]邱志刚、王子悦和王卓,2022,《地方政府债务置换与新增隐性债务——基于城投债发行规模与定价的分析》,《中国工业经济》第7期,第42~60页。
[19]王永钦、陈映辉和杜巨澜,2016,《软预算约束与中国地方政府债务违约风险:来自金融市场的证据》,《经济研究》第11期,第96~109页。
[20]尹恒和杨龙见,2014,《地方财政对本地居民偏好的回应性研究》,《中国社会科学》第5期,第96~115+206页。
[21]杨继东、杨其静和刘凯,2018,《以地融资与债务增长——基于地级市面板数据的经验研究》,《财贸经济》第2期,第52~68+117页。
[22]尹振东和汤玉刚,2016,《专项转移支付与地方财政支出行为——以农村义务教育补助为例》,《经济研究》第4期,第47~59页。
[23]张路,2020,《地方债务扩张的政府策略——来自融资平台“城投债”发行的证据》,《中国工业经济》第3期,第44~62页。
[24]张莉、年永威和刘京军,2018,《土地市场波动与地方债——以城投债为例》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1103~1126页。
[25]钟宁桦、陈姗姗、马惠娴和王姝晶,2021,《地方融资平台债务风险的演化——基于对“隐性担保”预期的测度》,《中国工业经济》第4期,第5~23页。
[26]朱莹和王健,2018,《市场约束能够降低地方债风险溢价吗?——来自城投债市场的证据》,《金融研究》第6期,第56~72页。
[27]Borusyak, K., P. Hull and X. Jaravel, 2022, “Quasi-experimental Shift-share Research Designs”, Review of Economic Studies ,89(1), pp.181~213.
[28] Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., I. Sorkin, and H. Swift, 2020, “Bartik Instruments: What, When, Why, and How”, American Economic Review, 110(8), pp.2586~2624.
[1] 孟源祎附录 Download
[2] 孟源祎内容精粹 Download
[1] 吴敏, 冯帆, 毛捷, 柏金春. 双向奔赴:地级市专项债投资与省级五年规划[J]. 金融研究, 2026, 552(6): 38-56.
[1] 陈德球, 陈运森, 董志勇. 政策不确定性、市场竞争与资本配置[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 65 -80 .
[2] 吕若思, 刘青, 黄灿, 胡海燕, 卢进勇. 外资在华并购是否改善目标企业经营绩效?——基于企业层面的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 112 -127 .
[3] 孙淑伟, 梁上坤, 阮刚铭, 付宇翔. 高管减持、信息压制与股价崩盘风险[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 175 -190 .
[4] 王攀娜, 罗宏. 放松卖空管制对分析师预测行为的影响——来自中国准自然实验的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 191 -206 .
[5] 李丹, 庞晓波, 方红生. 财政空间与中国政府债务可持续性[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 1 -17 .
[6] 王丽艳, 马光荣. 帆随风动、人随财走?——财政转移支付对人口流动的影响[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 18 -34 .
[7] 卢洪友, 余锦亮, 张楠. 纵向行政管理结构与地方政府财政支出规模[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 35 -51 .
[8] 潘彬, 王去非, 金雯雯. 时变视角下非正规借贷利率的货币政策反应研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 52 -67 .
[9] 李少昆. 美国货币政策是全球发展中经济体外汇储备影响因素吗?[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 68 -82 .
[10] 洪正, 张硕楠, 张琳. 经济结构、财政禀赋与地方政府控股城商行模式选择[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 83 -98 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1