The Construction of a Unified National Market, the Rise in Firms' Cross-Regional Sourcing of Intermediate Goods, and Export Growth
YU Lili, YUAN Jin
Institute of International Business, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics; School of Economics,Fudan University; School of Public Finance & Taxation, Guangdong University of Finance & Economics
Summary:
In recent years, the global supply chain has been undergoing a phase of accelerated restructuring, introducing considerable uncertainty to the participation of Chinese firms in the international division of labor and the realization of export growth. To this end, deepening domestic openness and refining the division of labor within the country to restructure industrial and supply chains, thereby enhancing export competitiveness and achieving steady yet progressive export growth, is not only a fundamental requirement for building a unified national market but also a crucial pillar for advancing the new development paradigm of mutually reinforcing “dual circulation” featureing positive interplay between domestic and international economic flows. Both macro-level data and micro-level studies (e.g., Kee and Tang, 2016) indicate that achieving steady and sustained export growth increasingly depends on the domestic configuration of intermediate goods production. In this context, the paper adopts a novel focus on firms' cross-regional sourcing of intermediate goods to examine the effects and mechanisms of market integration on export growth, providing theoretical foundations and policy guidance for reducing costs and increasing the efficiency of the domestic industrial chain, and promoting sustainable foreign trade development. From a theoretical perspective, this paper revises the framework proposed by Halpern et al. (2015) to construct a unified model linking domestic division of labor with export growth. Within the context of building a unified national market, it examines the impact and transmission mechanisms of increased cross-regional sourcing of intermediate goods by firms on export performance. Theoretical analysis suggests that a higher share of cross-regional sourcing, as facilitated by market integration, promotes export volume through productivity gains, while also influencing export diversification through the combined effects of productivity improvement and reduced incentives for R&D investment. From an empirical perspective, this paper adopts the lens of firms' cross-regional sourcing of intermediate goods to investigate the impact and transmission mechanisms of unified market development on export growth, using matched data from China's Customs Statistics and listed company databases. The results show that a one-percentage-point increase in the share of cross-regional sourcing of intermediate goods leads to a 0.2845% increase in the quantity of firm exports to a specific destination-product pair, and a 0.0737% increase in the number of product varieties exported to a given destination. The former effect is primarily driven by productivity gains, while the latter reflects the combined influence of productivity improvement and reduced incentives for R&D investment. This study carries significant policy implications. First, it highlights the need to strengthen domestic openness by dismantling inter-regional market segmentation and advancing the development of a unified national market. Second, it underscores the importance of improving both the quality and diversity of domestically produced intermediate goods to support the modernization of domestic industrial chains and safeguard the security and resilience of national supply chains. Third, it is essential to enhance cross-regional sourcing of intermediate goods in line with firm-level heterogeneity, in order to boost productivity and promote export growth. The marginal contributions of this paper are as follows. First, it addresses the limitations of existing literature that primarily measure market integration from a macro perspective by identifying the increase in firms' cross-regional sourcing of intermediate goods as a salient indicator of the development of a unified national market. This allows for the establishment of a firm-level analytical lens to examine the relationship between domestic market integration and international export growth. Second, this study extends the theoretical framework of Halpern et al. (2015) by incorporating domestic specialization in intermediate goods and international exports, and further introduces firms' decisions regarding product line expansion. In doing so, it develops an innovative theoretical model linking the construction of a unified domestic market with export growth through the lens of cross-regional intermediate input sourcing, thereby enriching the theoretical foundation for the dual circulation pattern. Third, adopting this micro-level perspective, the paper empirically investigates the impact of unified market development on both the intensive and extensive margins of firm-level exports, alongside its transmission mechanisms and heterogeneous effects. The empirical findings not only lend strong support to the theoretical propositions but also help mitigate potential upward biases in previous studies that rely solely on macro-level measures of market integration when assessing firm-level export performance.
余丽丽, 袁劲. 国内统一大市场建设、企业中间品异地采购份额提升与出口增长[J]. 金融研究, 2025, 538(4): 131-150.
YU Lili, YUAN Jin. The Construction of a Unified National Market, the Rise in Firms' Cross-Regional Sourcing of Intermediate Goods, and Export Growth. Journal of Financial Research, 2025, 538(4): 131-150.
Amiti, M. and J. Konings, 2007, “Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs and Productivity”, American Economic Review, 97(5), pp.1611～1638.
[15]
Angrist, J. D. and J. S. Pischke, 2014, Mastering ’Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[16]
Bas, M. and V. Strauss-Kahn, 2015, “Input-trade Liberalization, Export Prices and Quality Upgrading”, Journal of Internaitonal Economics, 95, pp.250～262.
[17]
Bellemare, M., T. Masaki and B. Pepinsky, 2017, “Lagged Explanatory Variables and the Estimation of Causal Effect”, The Journal of Politics, 79(3), pp.949～963.
[18]
Defever, F., M. Imbruno and R. Kneller, 2020, “Trade Liberalization, Input Intermediaries, and Firm Productivity: Evidence from China”, Journal of International Economics, 126(1), No.103329.
[19]
Donaldson, D. and R. Hornbeck, 2016, “Railroads and American Economic Growth: A ‘Markst Access' Approach”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131, pp.799～858.
[20]
Fan, H., L. C. Lai and H. Qi, 2019, “Trade Liberalization and Firms' Export Performance in China: Theory and Evidence”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 47, pp.640～668.
[21]
Feng, L., Z. Li and D. L. Swenson, 2016, “The Connection between Imported Intermediate Inputs and Exports: Evidence from Chinese Firms”, Journal of International Economics, 101, pp.86～101.
[22]
Goldberg, P., A. Khandelwal, N. Pavcnik and P. Topalova, 2009, “Trade Liberalization and New Imported Inputs”, American Economic Review: Papers ＆ Proceedings, 99(2), pp.494～500.
[23]
Halpern, L., K. Miklós and A. Szeidl, 2015, “Imported Inputs and Productivity”, American Economic Review, 105 (12), pp.3660～3703.
[24]
Kee, H. L. and H. W. Tang, 2016, “Domestic Value Added in Exports: Theory and Firm Evidence from China”, American Economic Review, 106(6), pp.1402～1436.
[25]
Liu, Q. and L. D. Qiu, 2016, “Intermediate Input Imports and Innovations: Evidence from Chinese Firms' Patent Filings”, Journal of International Economics, 103, pp.166～183.
[26]
Manova, K. and Z. Yu, 2016, “How Firms Export: Processing vs. Ordinary Trade with Financial Frictions”, Journal of International Economics, 100, pp.120～137.
[27]
Martincus, C. V., J. Carballo and A. Cusolito, 2017, “Roads, Exports and Employment: Evidence from a Developing Country”, Journal of Development Economics, 125, pp.21～39.
[28]
Melitz, M., 2003, “The Impact of Trade on Intra-industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity”, Econometrica, 71(6), pp.1695～1725.
[29]
Olley, S. and A. Pakes, 1996, “The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry”, Econometrica, 64(6), pp.1263～1297.
