Summary:
Studies of the relationship between informal institutions—especially culture—and corporate innovation are a hot topic in the cultural and industrial economics literature. However, scholars encounter the following problems. First, how can the cultural differences in different regions be measured？ Many sociologists believe that language is the main object of culture because it has the dual functions of creating society and improving cognition, while culture is an internally unified organic whole. Therefore, differences in dialects can be used to measure cultural differences. Second, how should the endogenous problem be solved？ We use dialect diversity to represent culture. Although the problem of reverse causality is not serious and can be quantified, there is no doubt that measurement errors exist. We begin with the perspective of dialect formation and choose the average terrain slope as the instrumental variable for dialect to ensure the credibility of our test results. Third, we identify the mechanism between dialect diversity and corporate innovation, which not only helps us understand how dialects (culture) affect enterprise innovation, but also allows us to make corresponding policy recommendations based on this mechanism. This maximizes the impact of culture on enterprise innovation. Through our theoretical analysis, we consider dialect as a kind of identity. People who speak the same dialect often quickly remove their barriers to trust. In regions with more dialects, the probability of sharing an identity based on dialect is lower than in regions with fewer dialects, which has a negative impact on social trust. In enterprise management, innovation investments are characterized by high investment and high risk. Therefore, the lower the degree of trust, the higher the cost of communication and coordination in investors' decision making. In areas with more dialects, the increase in communication and coordination costs caused by the decline in social trust inhibits enterprises' innovative decision-making practices. Second, from the perspective of enterprise innovation investment, innovation outsourcing is an important method for enterprises to improve their innovation capabilities and competitiveness. On the one hand, attempts at innovation outsourcing experience an information asymmetry between the outsourcing party and the contractor, with high related transaction costs. In this case, the cultural characteristics represented by dialect enable people who speak the same dialect to share the same information and cultural concepts, which helps reduce the information asymmetry between the two parties and their transaction costs. On the other hand, speaking the same dialect is also conducive to alleviating commercial disputes between the two parties, which also reduces transaction costs. Therefore, as the number of dialects increases, the transaction costs for enterprises' innovation outsourcing also increase. This causes a more prominent obstacle for enterprises' innovation outsourcing, which leads to a decline in their innovation investments. Finally, enterprises' independent innovation carries high investment costs and high risk, which requires a large amount of human and material capital. In this case, dialect diversity has a significant inhibitory effect on the cross-regional flow of production factors and technologies, which leads to market segmentation between different dialects. According to Foellmi and Zweimüller's (2006) demand-induced innovations theory, market segmentation is detrimental to enterprise-level innovation activities. We use the corporate innovation survey database and instrumental variable method to represent culture with dialects and empirically test the relationship between dialect diversity and corporate innovation. Dialect diversity shows a significant inhibitory effect on corporate innovation investments. On average, if the population-weighted dialect diversity index increases by 1%, the per capita private innovation investment in enterprises drops by 1.18%. We also find that the influence of dialect diversity on corporate innovation investment is mainly in the trust effect based on cultural identity rather than the cultural exchange effect. Moreover, dialect diversity increases the transaction costs in enterprises' innovation outsourcing process, which in turn significantly inhibits their innovation investments. Finally, dialect diversity strengthens the inhibitory effect on corporate innovation investments through market segmentation. We contribute three findings to the literature. First, based on the unique “culture and innovation” scenario, we reveal that informal institutions possibly hinder economic growth. Second, the uniqueness of the mechanism not only helps us to understand how dialect diversity affects corporate innovation, but also helps to alleviate its negative effects on economic growth. Third, the literature shows that dialect diversity is not conducive to urban economic development, while we find that it is not conducive to corporate innovation. Innovation is the core factor in maintaining economic growth; therefore, our results provide micro-level evidence and explanations for these macro results.
[1]包群、谢红军和陈佳妮,2017,《文化相近、合作信任与外商合资关系的持久性》,《管理世界》第3期,第29～43页。 [2]陈启斐、王晶晶和岳中刚,2015,《研发外包是否会抑制我国制造业自主创新能力？》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第2期,第53～69页。 [3]戴亦一、肖金利和潘越,2016,《“乡音”能否降低公司代理成本？——基于方言视角的研究》,《经济研究》第12期,第147～160+186页。 [4]丁从明、吉振霖、雷雨和梁甄桥,2018,《方言多样性与市场一体化:基于城市圈的视角》,《经济研究》第11期,第148～164页。 [5]董志强、魏下海和汤灿晴,2012,《制度软环境与经济发展——基于30个大城市营商环境的经验研究》,《管理世界》第4期,第9～20页。 [6]方颖和赵扬,2011,《寻找制度的工具变量:估计产权保护对中国经济增长的贡献》,《经济研究》第5期,第138～148页。 [7]高翔和龙小宁,2016,《省级行政区划造成的文化分割会影响区域经济吗？》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期,第647～674页。 [8]桂琦寒、陈敏、陆铭和陈钊,2006,《中国国内商品市场趋于分割还是整合:基于相对价格法的分析》,《世界经济》第2期,第20～30页。 [9]黄玖立和刘畅,2017,《方言与社会信任》,《财经研究》第7期,第83～94页。 [10]孔江平、王茂林、黄国文、麦涛、肖自辉和杨锋,2016,《语言生态研究的意义、现状及方法》,《暨南学报(哲学社会科学版)》第6期,第2～28+140+129页。 [11]李春涛和宋敏,2010,《中国制造业企业的创新活动:所有制和CEO激励的作用》,《经济研究》第5期,第55~67页。 [12]李秦和孟岭生,2014,《方言、普通话与中国劳动力区域流动》,《经济学报》第4期,第68～84页。 [13]李涛、黄纯纯、何兴强和周开国,2008,《什么影响了居民的社会信任水平？——来自广东省的经验证据》,《经济研究》第1期,第137～152页。 [14]李锡江和刘永兵,2014,《语言类型学视野下语言、思维与文化关系新探》,《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期,第148～152页。 [15]林建浩和赵子乐,2017,《均衡发展的隐形壁垒:方言、制度与技术扩散》,《经济研究》第9期,第182～197页。 [16]刘毓芸、戴天仕和徐现祥,2017,《汉语方言、市场分割与资源错配》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1583～1600页。 [17]刘毓芸、徐现祥和肖泽凯,2015,《劳动力跨方言流动的倒U型模式》,《经济研究》第10期,第134～146+162页。 [18]陆瑶和胡江燕,2014:《CEO 与董事间的“老乡”关系对我国上市公司风险水平的影响》,《管理世界》第3期,第131～138页。 [19]诺斯,杭行译,2008,《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》,上海:格致出版社。 [20]潘越和肖金利和戴亦一,2017,《文化多样性与企业创新:基于方言视角的研究》,《金融研究》第10期,第146～161页。 [21]申广军和王雅琦,2015,《市场分割与制造业企业全要素生产率》,《南方经济》第4期,第27～42页。 [22]温军和冯根福,2012,《异质机构、企业性质与自主创新》,《经济研究》第3期,第53～64页。 [23]徐现祥、刘毓芸和肖泽凯,2015,《方言与经济增长》,《经济学报》第2期,第1～32页。 [24]严成樑,2012,《社会资本、创新与长期经济增长》,《经济研究》第11 期,第48～60页。 [25]杨洋、魏江和罗来军,2015,《谁在利用政府补贴进行创新？——所有制和要素市场扭曲的联合调节效应》,《管理世界》第1期,第75～86+98+188页。 [26]詹伯慧,2001,《汉语方言及方言调查》,武汉:湖北教育出版社。 [27]张博和范辰辰,2018,《文化多样性与民间金融:基于方言视角的经验研究》,《金融研究》第7期,第69～89页。 [28]张杰、陈志远、杨连星和新夫,2015,《中国创新补贴政策的绩效评估:理论与证据》,《经济研究》第10期,第4～17+33页。 [29]张杰、吴书凤和金岳,2021,《中国金融扩张下的本土企业创新效应——基于倒U型关系的一个解释》,《金融研究》第4期,第55～72页。 [30]张杰和周晓艳,2011,《中国本土企业为何不创新——基于市场分割视角的一个解读》,《山西财经大学学报》第6期,第82～93页。 [31]赵奇伟和熊性美,2009,《中国三大市场分割程度的比较分析:时间走势与区域差异》,《世界经济》第6期,第41～53页。 [32]周振鹤和游汝杰,2006,《方言与中国文化》,上海:上海人民出版社。 [33]赵子乐和林建浩,2019,《海洋文化与企业创新——基于东南沿海三大商帮的实证研究》,《经济研究》第2期,第68～83页。 [34]Akomak, I.S.,and B. Ter Weel, 2009. “Social Capital,Innovation and Growth: Evidence from Europe”, European Economic Review,53( 5) ,pp.544～567. [35]Alesina, A.,S. Michalopoulos and E. Papaioannou,2016.“Ethnic Inequality”, Journal of Political Economy, 124(2),pp.428～488. [36]Amiti, M. and S.-J. Wei,2005. “Fear of Service Outsourcing: Is It Justified？” Economic Policy, 20(42),pp.308～347. [37]Baumol, W. J.,2002. “The Free-Market Innovation Machine Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism”, Published by Princeton University Press. [38]Caggese, A.,2012. “Entrepreneurial Risk, Investment, and Innovation”, Journal of Financial Economics, 106(2),pp.287～307. [39]Chen, M. K.,2013. “The Effect of Language on Economic Behavior: Evidence from Savings Rates, Health Behaviors, and Retirement Assets”, American Economic Review, 103(2),pp.690～731. [40]Chen, Y.,E. J. Podolski and M. Veeraraghavan,2017. “National Culture and Corporate Innovation”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 43,pp.173～187. [41]Falck, O.,S. Heblich,A. Lameli and J. Südekum,2012. “Dialects, Cultural Identity, and Economic Exchange”, Journal of Urban Economics, 72(2-3),pp.225～239. [42]Foellmi,R., Zweimüller,J.2006. “Income Distribution and Demand-Induced Innovations”, The Review of Economic Studies, 73(4), pp.941～960. [43]Gumperz, E. M.,1982. “Language and Social Identity”, Published by Cambridge University Press. [44]Jensen,M. ,and W. Meckling. 1976. “The Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior,Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics,3( 4) : 305～360. [45]Lin, C.,P. Lin,F. M. Song and C. Li,2011. “Managerial Incentives, Ceo Characteristics and Corporate Innovation in China's Private Sector”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 39(2),pp.176～190. [46]Milliken, F. J. and L. L. Martins,1996. “Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Groups”, Academy of Management Review, 21(2),pp.402～433. [47]Ottaviano, G. I. P. and G. Peri,2005. “Cities and Cultures”, Journal of Urban Economics, 58(2):304-337. [48]Piekkari, R. ,Oxelheim, L. and Randy, T., 2013. “The Role of Language in Corporate Governance: The Case of Board Internationalization ( No.974) ” IFN Working Paper [49]Spithoven, A. and P,Teirlinck, 2015. “Internal Capabilities, Network Resources and Appropriation Mechanisms as Determinants of R&D Outsourcing” ,Research Policy,44(3),pp. 711～725. [50]Taylor, M. Z. and S. Wilson,2012. “Does Culture Still Matter？ The Effects of Individualism on National Innovation Rates”, Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2),pp.234～247. [51]Wei, Y.,D. Kang and Y. Wang,2019. “Geography, Culture, and Corporate Innovation” ,Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 56,pp.310～329.
