Opening of Foreign Investment in Productive Services and Innovative Behavior of Manufacturing Firms
ZHU Zhujun, HUANG Xianhai, CHEN Hangyu
Modern Business Research Center & School of Economics, Zhejiang Gongshang University;
School of Economics, Zhejiang University;
Research Center for Regional Coordinated Development & China Open Economy, Zhejiang University
摘要 发展新质生产力,需要促进生产性服务业与制造业深度融合。本文扩展了Foster et al.(2008)模型,从供给侧、需求侧和一般均衡条件下,揭示上游生产性服务业外资开放对下游制造业创新行为的作用机制。实证研究发现:(1)总体上,生产性服务业外资开放,显著提升了中国制造业企业专利创新数量、质量和效率;(2)机理方面,生产性服务业外资开放,对下游制造业创新行为存在正向的成本节约效应和偏好互补效应、负向的竞争加剧效应,净效应取决于正负效应之和。生产性服务业外资开放对下游制造业创新作用程度呈现U形曲线关系,正向创新效应存在开放度“门槛值”;(3)政策方面,加快通信、商务和科技等知识密集型服务业外资开放,提升制造业企业技术水平和管理效率,优化地区市场化程度,促进边境外措施和边境内措施协同互补,有利于更好发挥正向创新效应。本文对扩大生产性服务业外资开放,促进中国制造业创新,发展新质生产力,具有一定参考意义。
Summary:
The development of new quality productivity requires promoting the deep integration of productive services with manufacturing. A report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposes to increase the opening of the modern service industry and promote its deep integration with advanced manufacturing. Overall, the proportion of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) is increasing, and the proportion of productive services represented by KIBS will continue to increase steadily. Currently, a conspicuous shift from real to virtual productive services is ongoing, and the positive effect of productive services on manufacturing is decreasing. The level of coordinated development between productive services and manufacturing is low. Promoting the deep integration of productive services with manufacturing will enhance China's high-quality development. Whether upstream productive services can promote innovative behavior in downstream manufacturing serves as the micro basis for testing this macro proposition. Improving the levels of integration and development between productive services and manufacturing and cultivating new forces to drive growth through service innovation are currently hot topics in academic and policy circles. This paper theoretically extends Foster et al.'s (2008) benchmark model by introducing innovation behavior and the upstream opening of foreign investment in productive services. It reveals the mechanism of innovation behavior in downstream manufacturing from the supply side and demand side and under general equilibrium conditions. According to a comparative static analysis, the impact of opening foreign investment in productive services on manufacturing innovation yields a U-shaped curve. Specifically, the opening of knowledge-intensive services affects the innovation behavior of downstream manufacturing firms through a cost-saving effect, a preference complementarity effect, and a competition intensification effect, while the opening of transportation services affects the innovation behavior of downstream manufacturing firms through a cost-saving effect and a competition intensification effect. This paper yields the following findings. (1) Overall, the opening of foreign investment in productive services significantly improves the quantity, quality, and efficiency of patent innovation in Chinese manufacturing firms. (2) Mechanistically, the opening of foreign investment in productive services has a positive cost-saving effect and preference complementarity effect and a negative competition intensification effect on downstream manufacturing innovation behavior. The total effect depends on the sum of the above effects. The opening of foreign investment in productive services yields a U-shaped relationship with the degree of manufacturing innovation, and a threshold value of openness with a positive innovation effect is revealed. (3) Several types of policies are conducive to expanding positive innovation effects, namely accelerating the opening of knowledge-intensive service industries such as communication, commerce, and technology to foreign investment; improving the technological level and management efficiency of manufacturing firms; optimizing the degree of regional marketization; and promoting the synergy and complementarity of measures outside and within the border. This paper may serve as an important reference in terms of expanding the opening of foreign investment in productive services, promoting Chinese manufacturing firms' innovative behavior, and exploring institutional opening paths for the development of new quality productivity. The potential marginal contributions are as follows. (1) Theoretically, this paper extensively incorporates analysis of the complementary effects of demand-side preferences and finds that the complementary effects of productive services and manufacturing enhance the degree of firms' product appeal. Simultaneously, this paper draws on the general equilibrium solution to analyze the overall impact of the opening of foreign investment in productive services on changes to cut-off costs in manufacturing. This paper incorporates a cost-saving effect, preference complementarity effect, and competition intensification effect into the unified theoretical framework to analyze the mechanism by which the opening of foreign investment in productive services affects manufacturing innovation. (2) Empirically, this paper extends the methods used to identify and portray firms' innovation behavior and the opening of foreign investment in productive services. Due to the lack of firm-level data on the intermediate inputs of services, the literature uses domestic input-output tables to measure the degree of industry-level service openness based on the assumption of homogeneous proportions. However, this approach cannot effectively reflect the impact of a specific manufacturing on the upstream domestic and foreign components of productive service calls. This paper distinguishes between the proportions of domestic and foreign intermediate input into productive services, using the WIOD's non-competitive input-output tables to accurately measure the extent of the impact of foreign investment openness policy shocks in productive services at the industry level. Using patents as the core indicator of innovation output and information from the Annual Survey of Chinese Industrial Firms and Innovation Survey Database, this paper provides an effective measure of patent quality and innovation efficiency. (3) In terms of policy implications, this paper provides micro-foundational and theoretical support for realizing the deep integration of advanced manufacturing with modern services and demonstrates the importance of promoting the real economy by moderately pre-opening productive services. This paper explores feasible measures for promoting innovative behavior in Chinese manufacturing by opening foreign investment in upstream productive services and provides a path for optimizing innovation-driven development strategies with the systematic opening of the productive service industry and other fields. It thus provides optimized paths toward the development of new quality productivity.
[1] 来有为和陈红娜,2017,《以扩大开放提高我国服务业发展质量和国际竞争力》,《管理世界》第5期,第17～27页。 [2] 龙小宁和王俊,2015,《中国专利激增的动因及其质量效应》,《世界经济》第6期,第115～142页。 [3] 邵朝对、苏丹妮和王晨,2021,《服务业开放、外资管制与企业创新:理论和中国经验》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1411～1432页。 [4] 孙浦阳、侯欣裕和盛斌,2018,《服务业开放、管理效率与企业出口》,《经济研究》第7期,第136～151页。 [5] 余淼杰、金洋和张睿,2018,《工业企业产能利用率衡量与生产率估算》,《经济研究》第5期,第56～71页。 [6] 张建华和程文,2019,《服务业供给侧结构性改革与跨越中等收入陷阱》,《中国社会科学》第3期,第39～61页。 [7] 诸竹君、黄先海和王毅,2020,《外资进入与中国式创新双低困境破解》,《经济研究》第5期,第99～115页。 [8] 诸竹君、黄先海和王煌,2019,《交通基础设施改善促进了企业创新吗？——基于高铁开通的准自然实验》,《金融研究》第11期,第153～169页。 [9] Acharya, V., and Z. Xu, 2017, “Financial Dependence and Innovation: The Case of Public versus Private Firms”, Journal of Financial Economics, 124(2), 223～243. [10] Aghion, P., U. Akcigit, A. Bergeaud, R. Blundell, and D. Hémous, 2019, “Innovation and Top Income Inequality”, Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 1～45. [11] Aghion, P., A. Bergeaud, M. Lequien, and M. J. Melitz, 2022, “The Heterogeneous Impact of Market Size on Innovation: Evidence from French Firm-Level Exports”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1～56. [12] Bas, M., 2020, “The Effect of Communication and Energy Services Reform on Manufacturing Firms' Innovation”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 48(2), 339～362. [13] Beverelli, C., M. Fiorini, and B. Hoekman, 2017, “Services Trade Policy and Manufacturing Productivity: The Role of Institutions”, Journal of International Economics, 104, 166～182. [14] Bloom, N., K. Manova, J. Van Reenen, S. T. Sun, and Z. Yu, 2021, “Trade and Management”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 103(3), 443～460. [15] Cicala, S., 2015, “When Does Regulation Distort Costs？ Lessons From Fuel Procurement in US Electricity Generation”, American Economic Review, 105(1), 411～444. [16] Chor, D., 2009, “Subsidies for FDI: Implications from a Model with Heterogeneous Firms”, Journal of International Economics, 78(1), 113～125. [17] Correa‐López, M., and R. Doménech, 2019, “Service Regulations, Input Prices and Export Volumes: Evidence from a Panel of Manufacturing Firms”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 67(2), 328～371. [18] Foster, L., J. Haltiwanger, and C. Syverson, 2008, “Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability？”, American Economic Review, 98(1), 394～425. [19] Hottman, C., S. J. Redding, and D. E. Weinstein, 2016, “Quantifying the Sources of Firm Heterogeneity”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3), 1291～1364. [20] Howell, A., J. Lin, and S. Worack, 2020, “Going out to Innovate More at Home: Impacts of Outward Direct Investments on Chinese Firms' Domestic Innovation Performance”, China Economic Review, 60, 101404. [21] Lind, J. T., H. Mehlum, 2010, “With or Without U？ The Appropriate Test for A U-Shaped Relationship”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109～118. [22] Liu, X., A. Mattoo, Z. Wang, and S. J. Wei, 2020, “Services Development and Comparative Advantage in Manufacturing”, Journal of Development Economics, 144, 102438. [23] Mann, W., 2018, “Creditor Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Patent Collateral”, Journal of Financial Economics, 130(1), 25～47. [24] Mayer, T., M. J. Melitz, and G. I. Ottaviano, 2014, “Market Size, Competition, and the Product Mix of Exporters”, American Economic Review, 104(2), 495～536. [25] Shearmur, R., and D. Doloreux, 2019, “KIBS as Both Innovators and Knowledge Intermediaries in the Innovation Process: Intermediation as a Contingent Role”, Papers in Regional Science, 98(1), 191～209. [26] Thangavelu, S. M., W. Wang, and S. Oum, 2018, “Servicification in Global Value Chains: Comparative Analysis of Selected Asian Countries with OECD”, World Economy, 41(11), 3045～3070.
