Summary:
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the scale of the digital economy has been increasing, and digital technology with information networks as the core has gradually become an important force to promote economic development worldwide and has profoundly changed the economic activities of different subjects. However, “big volume” does not mean “strong bones.” At the enterprise level, whether the digital transformation of enterprises yields high-quality development characterized mainly by benefits requires further discussion and analysis. In this paper, digital transformation is included in the heterogeneity model of enterprises. Based on a general equilibrium analysis, we find that under the effect of diminishing marginal productivity, digital transformation does not always have a positive impact on firms' markups, but has an inverted U-shaped nonlinear influence, which first promotes and then inhibits markups. Firm innovation and firm productivity are the key micro-mechanisms for the above effects to play a role. Based on the analysis of typical facts and empirical data of listed companies, the measurement test yields the following results. First, digital transformation can significantly improve firms' markups when it is below a specific threshold value, but it will have a negative impact when it exceeds this value; that is, there is an inverted U-shaped nonlinear relationship between digital transformation and firms' markups. Second, the heterogeneity analysis shows that digital transformation has a greater effect on the markups of state-owned enterprises, export enterprises, and technology-intensive enterprises than on the markups of other firms. Third, digital transformation has an impact on firms' markups through two key micro-mechanisms: enterprise innovation ability and production efficiency. The innovation of this paper is mainly reflected in the following aspects. First, from a research perspective, this paper discusses the possible impact of the digital transformation of Chinese enterprises on the quality, benefits, and competitiveness of enterprise development, within the context of the digital economy and the specific perspective of firms' markups. Second, in terms of the mechanism of action, digital transformation is included in the heterogeneity model of enterprises. Based on the general equilibrium analysis, this paper proposes an inverted U-shaped micro-mechanism of influence of digital transformation on firms' markups, which first promotes and then inhibits markups. Finally, in terms of research methods, based on the non-dynamic threshold model, this paper estimates the impact of digital transformation on firms' markups and, compared with other approaches, better deals with the endogeneity problem and corporate information disclosure bias, which enhances the credibility of the conclusions. In addition, the multi-dimensional heterogeneity test is conducive to deepening understanding of the impact of digital transformation on firms' markups. The findings of this paper not only help deepen our understanding and objectively evaluate the impact of digital transformation on firms' markups but also have important policy implications for ways to further improve the quality and efficiency of enterprise development and enhance their market competitiveness through digital empowerment. We make the following recommendations on this basis. First, we must accelerate the digital transformation of enterprises by strengthening the digital thinking ability of enterprises, improving digital application and management ability, and comprehensively and systematically promote enterprise cooperation and digital transformation in the whole value chain, including R&D, design, production and processing, operation and management, sales and services. Second, we must pay attention to grasp the enterprise digital transformation degree. In other words, to grasp the important strategic opportunities brought by digital technology and promote the digital transformation of enterprises, we must pay attention to the “overkill” formed by the law of diminishing marginal productivity. The digital transformation of enterprises in China remains in the initial stages, far from the threshold values or critical points, leaving huge scope for digital transformation to develop. Third, we should optimize the external environment of enterprise digital transformation. Starting from the basic principle of multi-factor cooperation, continuous optimization of external conditions is also an important way to continuously raise the threshold value for possible negative effects of enterprise digital transformation, to lay a necessary foundation for further improving the degree of and space for enterprise digital transformation. Fourth, it is essential to make arrangements for key areas of enterprise digital transformation. The research in this paper shows that there remain important differences between types of enterprises in terms of the quality benefits and competitiveness represented by their markups. These differences may mean that in the future, to grasp the strategic opportunities brought by the progress of digital technology and accelerate the process of promoting the digital transformation of enterprises, it will be necessary to effectively select key areas, departments, and types of enterprises.
[1]柏培文和喻理,2021,《数字经济发展与企业价格加成:理论机制与经验事实》,《中国工业经济》第11期,第59～77页。 [2]戴翔和马皓巍,2023,《数字化转型、出口增长与低加成率陷阱》,《中国工业经济》第5期,第61～79页。 [3]何帆和刘红霞,2019,《数字经济视角下实体企业数字化变革的业绩提升效应评估》,《改革》第4期,第137～148页。 [4]黄群慧、余泳泽和张松林,2019,《互联网发展与制造业生产率提升:内在机制与中国经验》,《中国工业经济》第8期,第5～23页。 [5]黄先海、诸竹君和宋学印,2016,《中国出口企业阶段性低加成率陷阱》,《世界经济》第3期,第95～117页。 [6]刘啟仁和黄建忠,2016,《产品创新如何影响企业加成率》,《世界经济》第11期,第28～53页。 [7]刘啟仁和黄建忠,2015,《异质出口倾向、学习效应与“低加成率陷阱”》,《经济研究》第12期,第143～157页。 [8]鲁桐和党印,2014,《公司治理与技术创新:分行业比较》,《经济研究》第6期,第115～128页。 [9]盛丹和王永进,2012,《中国企业低价出口之谜——基于企业加成率的视角》,《管理世界》第5期,第8～23页。 [10]王煌、黄先海、陈航宇和张茜蓉,2020,《人力资本匹配如何影响企业加成率:理论机制与经验证据》,《财贸经济》第1期,第110～128页。 [11]许明和李逸飞,2020,《最低工资政策、成本不完全传递与多产品加成率调整》,《经济研究》第4期,第167～183页。 [12]袁淳、肖土盛、耿春晓和盛誉,2021,《数字化转型与企业分工:专业化还是纵向一体化》,《中国工业经济》第9期,第137～155页。 [13]赵璨、曹伟、姚振晔和王竹泉,2020,《“互联网+”有利于降低企业成本黏性吗？》,《财经研究》第4期,第33～47页。 [14]赵宸宇、王文春和李雪松,2021,《数字化转型如何影响企业全要素生产率》,《财贸经济》第7期,第114～129页。 [15]诸竹君、宋学印、张胜利和陈丽芳,2021,《产业政策、创新行为与企业加成率——基于战略性新兴产业政策的研究》,《金融研究》第6期,第59～75页。 [16]Abramova N. and Grishchenko N.2020. “ICTs, Labour Productivity and Employment: Sustainability in Industries in Russia”, Procedia Manufacturing, 43: 299～305. [17]Coşar A.K., Guner N. and Tybout J. 2016. “Firm Dynamics, Job Turnover, and Wage Distributions in an Open Economy”, American Economic Review, 106(3): 625～663. [18]Gervais A. 2015. “Product Quality and Firm Heterogeneity in International Trade”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 48(3): 1152～1174. [19]Hallak J.C. and Sivadasan J.2009. “Firms' Exporting Behavior under Quality Constraints”, National Bureau of Economic Research. [20]Kim O. and Verrecchia R.E. 2001. “The Relation among Disclosure, Returns, and Trading Volume Information”, Accounting Review, 76(4): 633～654. [21]Loecker J.D. and Warzynski F.2012. “Markups and Firm-level Export Status”, American Economic Review, 102(6): 2437～2471. [22]Lu Y., Tao Z. and Linhui Yu.2014. “The Markup Effect of Agglomeration”, Working Paper. [23]Lu Y. and Yu L.2015. “Trade Liberalization and Markup Dispersion: Evidence from China's WTO Accession”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4): 221～253. [24]Melitz M.J. and Ottaviano G.I.P.2008. “Market Size, Trade, and Productivity”, Review of Economic Studies, 75(1): 295～316. [25]Tavassoli S. 2018. “The Role of Product Innovation on Export Behavior of Firms: Is It Innovation Input or Innovation Output That Matters？”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(2): 294～314. [26]Wang Q.2015. “Fixed-effect Panel Threshold Model Using Stata”, Stata Journal, 15(1): 121～134.
