Government Service Informatization and High-quality Development of the Bond Market——A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on the “National Pilot Cities for Information Benefiting the People”
ZHEN Hongxian, LI Jia, WANG Xi
School of Accounting/China Internal Control Research Center/School of Fintech, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics
Summary:
Strengthening the construction of digital government is an important measure for innovating government governance concepts and methods, forming a new pattern of digital governance, and advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. Government service informatization is the foundation and prerequisite for building a digital government, and it is also an important component of digital government construction. Its core concept is to use information technology to break down “information silos” among government departments, eliminate data barriers between government and market entities, and develop efficient and collaborative digital governance. Existing research has shown that government service informatization can promote enterprise innovation, enhance investment efficiency, and drive high-quality economic development. The high-quality development of the bond market is a crucial component of such development, but few studies have explored the impact of government service informatization on the high-quality development of the bond market. We use the National Pilot Policy for Information Benefiting the People as an exogenous shock and employ a difference-in-differences (DID) model to examine the impact of government service informatization on the high-quality development of the bond market. We find that compared with non-pilot areas, corporate bond credit risk in the pilot cities for Information Benefiting the People is significantly lower. Mechanism analysis reveals that government service informatization mitigates bond credit risk by alleviating information asymmetry, reducing institutional transaction costs, curbing the probability of corporate default, and improving bond liquidity. The heterogeneity analysis indicates that the effect of government service informatization on reducing bond credit risk is more pronounced in regions with higher environmental uncertainty, lower levels of government websites information disclosure, greater regional information barriers, and lower bond credit ratings. Further analysis shows that government service informatization helps improve bond pricing efficiency and helps curb credit rating inflation. This paper makes the following contributions. First, taking the high-quality development of the bond market as the research perspective, this paper verifies the positive impact of government service informatization on the development of the corporate bond market. This finding enriches the research on the economic consequences of government service informatization from a financing perspective and provides valuable insights for the design of subsequent related studies. Second, from the perspective of big data empowerment, we explore the role of government service informatization in reducing bond credit risk, improving bond pricing efficiency, and curbing credit rating inflation, thereby enriching the literature on the factors influencing the high-quality development of the bond market. Third, we attempt to explore the information, service, supervision, and confidence empowerment of government service informatization, providing useful enlightenment on how government service informatization can accelerate the transformation of government functions, enhance service efficiency, improve social expectations, and promote the high-quality development of the bond market. This paper offers the following policy implications. First, we emphasize the importance of advancing government service informatization to build an efficient, service-oriented government. The government should make full use of information technologies such as the Internet, big data, and cloud computing to comprehensively improve government services. Second, we highlight the need to fully develop and utilize government data and deepen the promotion of open data sharing. The government should promote the integration of multi-dimensional and multi-level data resources, improve the mechanism for sharing and disclosing government data, and fully release the value of data. Third, this paper stresses the active role that government service informatization can play in promoting the high-quality development of the bond market. By providing transparent and efficient government services, it can reduce the operational burdens on enterprises and improve the accessibility to government information resources, effectively reducing information frictions among market entities, ultimately contributing to the high-quality development of the bond market.
甄红线, 李佳, 王玺. 政务服务信息化与债券市场高质量发展——基于“信息惠民国家试点城市”的准自然实验[J]. 金融研究, 2025, 535(1): 152-169.
ZHEN Hongxian, LI Jia, WANG Xi. Government Service Informatization and High-quality Development of the Bond Market——A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on the “National Pilot Cities for Information Benefiting the People”. Journal of Financial Research, 2025, 535(1): 152-169.
[1]方锦程、刘颖、高昊宇、董纪昌和吕本富,2023,《公共数据开放能否促进区域协调发展？——来自政府数据平台上线的准自然实验》,《管理世界》第9期,第124～142页。 [2]何雨可、牛耕、逯建和赵国昌,2024,《数字治理与城市创业活力——来自“信息惠民国家试点”政策的证据》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第1期,第47～66页。 [3]黄继承和朱光顺,2024,《注册制改革与债券发行利差:监管部门隐性担保视角》,《经济研究》第7期,第92～110页。 [4]黄寿峰和赵岩,2023,《政务服务信息化与基本公共服务水平》,《世界经济》第8期,第32～54页。 [5]黄卓、陶云清和王帅,2023,《社会信用环境改善降低了企业违规吗？——来自“中国社会信用体系建设”的证据》,《金融研究》第5期,第96～114页。 [6]季飞和李韦,2019,《中国推进“互联网+政务服务”的政策供给逻辑》,《江西社会科学》第9期,第202～211页。 [7]姜富伟、林奕皓和马甜,2023,《“去刚兑”背景下的企业债券违约风险:机器学习预警和经济机制探究》,《金融研究》第10期,第85～103页。 [8]林晚发、方梅和沈宇航,2021,《债券募集说明书文本信息与债券发行定价》,《管理科学》第4期,第19～34页。 [9]刘若鸿和黄玖立,2023,《地方产业政策与债券融资成本》,《中国工业经济》第6期,第118～136页。 [10]马光荣和赵耀红,2022,《行政区划壁垒、边界地区公共品提供与经济发展》,《金融研究》第8期,第55～73页。 [11]曲永义和王可,2022,《中国政务服务信息化及其对企业创新的影响研究》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第4期,第25～44页。 [12]佘楷文、申宇和赵绍阳,2024,《大数据对银行信贷行为的影响——来自数字社会信用平台的证据》,《经济研究》第3期,第147～165页。 [13]申慧慧、于鹏和吴联生,2012,《国有股权、环境不确定性与投资效率》,《经济研究》第7期,第113～126页。 [14]史永东、宋明勇、李凤羽和甄红线,2021,《控股股东股权质押与企业债权人利益保护——来自中国债券市场的证据》,《经济研究》第8期,第109～126页。 [15]宋敏、甘煦和林晚发,2019,《债券信用评级膨胀:原因、影响及对策》,《经济学动态》第3期,第134～147页。 [16]孙荣和梁丽,2017,《“互联网+”政务视域下的政府职能转变研究》,《南京社会科学》第9期,第64～72页。 [17]王国刚,2023,《中国金融高质量发展之要义》,《国际金融研究》第5期,第3～10页。 [18]王茹婷、彭方平、李维和王春丽,2022,《打破刚性兑付能降低企业融资成本吗？》,《管理世界》第4期,第42～64页。 [19]王雄元、张春强和何捷,2015,《宏观经济波动性与短期融资券风险溢价》,《金融研究》第1期,第68～83页。 [20]王永钦和刘红劭,2024,《政策保障与中国债券市场高质量发展:一个统一的分析框架》,《管理世界》第5期,第1～27页。 [21]吴育辉、翟玲玲、张润楠和魏志华,2020,《“投资人付费”vs.“发行人付费”:谁的信用评级质量更高？》,《金融研究》第1期,第130～149页。 [22]夏杰长和刘诚,2017,《行政审批改革、交易费用与中国经济增长》,《管理世界》第4期,第47～59页。 [23]徐霞和蔡熙乾,2021,《电子政务能提高企业投资效率吗？——基于电子政务县级试点的准自然实验》,《经济管理》第11期,第176～192页。 [24]杨国超和刘琪,2022,《中国债券市场信用评级制度有效性研究》,《经济研究》第10期,第191～208页。 [25]杨子晖、陈雨恬和李东承,2024,《信用风险传染效应与外溢冲击研究》,《经济研究》第5期,第41～58页。 [26]应验,2019,《政府数据开放共享与共享社会建设:海南的举措和探索》,《电子政务》第6期,第82～90页。 [27]翟云,2019,《整体政府视角下政府治理模式变革研究——以浙、粤、苏、沪等省级“互联网+政务服务”为例》,《电子政务》第10期,第34～45页。 [28]张晨和张新颜,2023,《数字治理、治理质量与经济增长》,《统计研究》第7期,第123～133页。 [29]甄红线和吉继平,2023,《债券市场开放影响债券信用利差吗？——基于“债券通”的准自然实验》,《金融研究》第12期,第38～55页。 [30]甄红线、李佳和王玺,2024,《“国家队”基金与债券信用利差——基于股票市场与债券市场风险传染的视角》,《国际金融研究》第9期,第85～96页。 [31]周宏、林晚发和李国平,2014,《信息不确定、信息不对称与债券信用利差》,《统计研究》第5期,第66～72页。 [32]周宏、周畅、林晚发和李国平,2018,《公司治理与企业债券信用利差——基于中国公司债券2008—2016年的经验证据》,《会计研究》第5期,第59～66页。 [33]周泽将、高雅萍和张世国,2020,《营商环境影响企业信贷成本吗》,《财贸经济》第12期,第117～131页。 [34]朱光顺、张莉和徐现祥,2020,《行政审批改革与经济发展质量》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期,第1059～1080页。 [35]Acharya, V. V., Y. Amihud, and S. T. Bharath, 2013, “Liquidity Risk of Corporate Bond Returns: Conditional Approach”, Journal of Financial Economics, 110(2), pp. 358～386. [36]Amihud, Y., 2002, “Illiquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-section and Time-series Effects”, Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1), pp. 31～56. [37]Bharath, S. T., and T. Shumway, 2008, “Forecasting Default with the Merton Distance to Default Model”, The Review of Financial Studies, 21(3), pp. 1339～1369. [38]Cao, G., C. Liu, and L.A. Zhou, 2023, “Suing the Government under Weak Rule of Law: Evidence from Administrative Litigation Reform in China”, Journal of Public Economics, 222, 104895. [39]Ding, Y., W. Xiong, and J. Zhang, 2022, “Issuance Overpricing of China's Corporate Debt Securities”, Journal of Financial Economics, 144(1), pp. 328～346. [40]Grossman, S. J., and J. E. Stiglitz, 1976, “Information and Competitive Price Systems”, The American Economic Review, 66(2), pp. 246～253. [41]Huang, J.z., B. Liu, and Z. Shi, 2023, “Determinants of Short-term Corporate Yield Spreads: Evidence from the Commercial Paper Market”, Review of Finance, 27(2), pp. 539～579. [42]Kaviani, M. S., L. Kryzanowski, H. Maleki, and P. Savor, 2020, “Policy Uncertainty and Corporate Credit Spreads”, Journal of Financial Economics, 138(3), pp. 838～865. [43]Kim, O., and R. E. Verrecchia, 2001, “The Relation Among Disclosure, Returns, and Trading Volume Information”, The Accounting Review, 76(4), pp. 633～654. [44]Kim, S., and J. Lee, 2012, “E‐participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Government”, Public Administration Review, 72(6), pp. 819～828. [45]Lu, C.W., T.K. Chen, and H.H. Liao, 2010, “Information Uncertainty, Information Asymmetry and Corporate Bond Yield Spreads”, Journal of Banking ＆ Finance, 34(9), pp. 2265～2279. [46]Nozawa, Y., and Y. Qiu, 2021, “Corporate Bond Market Reactions to Quantitative Easing during the Covid-19 Pandemic”, Journal of Banking ＆ Finance, 133, pp. 106153. [47]Sangiorgi, F., and C. Spatt, 2017, “Opacity, Credit Rating Shopping, and Bias”, Management Science, 63(12), pp. 4016～4036. [48]Tang, D. Y., and H. Yan, 2010, “Market Conditions, Default Risk and Credit Spreads”, Journal of Banking ＆ Finance, 34(4), pp. 743～753.
