Summary:
Taxation is deeply linked to China's economic growth. A robust fiscal and tax framework is essential for efficient resource allocation, market integration, social equity, and long-term national stability, and constitutes the institutional foundation of a well-functioning market economy. Since the reform and opening-up, Chinese firms have made remarkable progress in “going global”, bolstered by strong policy support. As a key policy instrument facilitating the dual circulation of domestic and international economies, the export tax rebate effectively reduces the tax burden on exporters and enhances their international competitiveness. Before 2015, export tax rebates were jointly financed by central and local governments. However, uneven regional development and increasing local fiscal pressures led to inefficiencies in rebate payments and delays in capital recovery for exporting firms. When exporters rely on suppliers’ funds for financing, liquidity risk is transmitted upstream, undermining supply chain security and stability. Addressing exporters’ financing constraints and revitalizing supplier liquidity through fiscal reform has thus become an urgent policy priority. The reform of the export tax rebate-sharing in 2015 represents an important institutional innovation. The export tax rebate-sharing mechanism defines how the central and local governments share fiscal responsibility for export tax rebate payments. By transferring rebate expenditure entirely to the central government, the reform alleviates local fiscal burdens, shortens rebate processing time, and accelerates capital recovery for exporters, thereby reducing the tie-up of suppliers’ funds. This paper raises three research questions:(1) Does the reform generate spillover effects across supply chains? (2) Through which mechanisms do these effects occur? (3) Do regional and firm-level heterogeneities exist? Answering these questions contributes to a deeper understanding of the reform’s significance for safeguarding supply chain security and stability. Using data form A-share listed companies over the period 2007-2024, this study documents several key findings. First, following the reform of the export tax rebate-sharing mechanism, exporting firms significantly reduced their encroachment on suppliers’ working capital relative to non-exporting firms. The reform operates through two key channels, alleviating financing constraints and facilitating cross-regional procurement, which ease firms’ financing pressure and lower procurement costs, thereby generating both direct and indirect spillover effects along the supply chain. Second, these spillover effects exhibit notable heterogeneity. At the regional and industry level, the effects are stronger in regions with higher government efficiency, better business environments, and more competitive industries. At the firm level, the effects are more pronounced among non-state-owned enterprises and exporters located closer to ports. Third, the results suggest that adjustments to the rebate-sharing ratio help promote balanced regional development and optimize the tax structure. Moreover, the reform mitigates asymmetric supply-demand fluctuations at the industry level and improves the efficiency of capital circulation across the supply chain. These results remain robust across a battery of alternative specifications and robustness tests. This study makes several contributions. First, it extends the literature on the export tax rebate-sharing reform by incorporating a supply chain spillover perspective. While prior research has focused primarily on firm-level outcomes, such as export performance and procurement location choices, it has largely overlooked how the reform transmits effects through supplier–customer networks linked by trade credit. This paper addresses that gap by providing systematic empirical evidence of such spillover effects and offering policy implications for further refining the reform. Second, it identifies the mechanisms through which the reform shapes inter-firm trade credit arrangements, thereby contributing to the broader literature on supply chain spillovers. Third, the findings provide empirical evidence that can guide further refinement of the export tax rebate-sharing mechanism and inform the design of proactive fiscal policies aimed at strengthening China's macroeconomic governance. The findings offer several policy and managerial implications. First, it is essential to clearly delineate fiscal responsibilities between central and local governments to ensure timely and efficient disbursement of export tax rebates. In particular, enhanced financial support should be directed toward non-state-owned enterprises to improve capital flows, mitigate the risk of supply chain disruptions, and safeguard supply chain stability. Second, policymakers should promote innovation in supply chain finance to diversify firms’ funding sources. A collaborative credit management framework should be established to facilitate supplier credit evaluation and risk assessment, thereby enhancing the resilience of both industrial and supply chains. Third, at the firm level, companies should deepen collaboration with supply chain partners to foster coordinated upstream and downstream development. Through stronger financial cooperation and deeper supply chain integration, firms can bolster their long-term competitiveness and sustainable growth capacity. In sum, this study provides robust evidence that the export tax rebate-sharing reform generates significant positive spillover effects on supply chain performance, offering both theoretical insights and practical guidance for further fiscal reform and supply chain governance.
[1]陈运森、韩慧云和陈德球,2023,《区域一体化战略、社会网络与商业信用——基于京津冀一体化的证据》,《管理科学学报》第26期,第69~92页。 [2]范子英和朱星姝,2022,《提升产业链供应链现代化水平的财税改革思路》,《税务研究》第1期,第21~26页。 [3]范子英和张军,2010,《财政分权、转移支付与国内市场整合》,《经济研究》第45期,第53~64页。 [4]韩忠雪和周婷婷,2011,《产品市场竞争、融资约束与公司现金持有:基于中国制造业上市公司的实证分析》,《南开管理评论》第14期,第149~160页。 [5]李涵和唐丽淼,2015,《交通基础设施投资、空间溢出效应与企业库存》,《管理世界》第4期,第126~136页。 [6]李科和徐龙炳,2009,《资本结构、行业竞争与外部治理环境》,《经济研究》第44期,第116~128页。 [7]刘怡、耿纯和赵仲匡,2017,《出口退税政府间分担对产品出口的影响》,《经济学(季刊)》第16期,第1011~1030页。 [8]陆铭和陈钊,2009,《分割市场的经济增长——为什么经济开放可能加剧地方保护?》,《经济研究》第44期,第42~52页。 [9]陆正飞和杨德明,2011,《商业信用:替代性融资,还是买方市场?》,《管理世界》第4期,第6~14+45页。 [10]吕凯波,2016,《财政分权、出口退税分担机制改革与出口贸易增长》,《国际贸易问题》第5期,第28~38页。 [11]孙英杰和林春,2018,《税制结构变迁与中国经济增长质量——对地方政府税收合意性的一个检验》,《经济科学》第5期,第5~16页。 [12]唐松和谢雪妍,2021,《企业持股金融机构如何服务实体经济——基于供应链溢出效应的视角》,《中国工业经济》第11期,第116~134页。 [13]陶锋、王欣然、徐扬和朱盼,2023,《数字化转型、产业链供应链韧性与企业生产率》,《中国工业经济》第5期,第118~136页。 [14]王永进和燕晓娟,2024,《自由贸易试验区、商业信贷网络与企业出口》,《管理世界》第40期,第48~65+172+166~168页。 [15]王钟阳和唐松,2024,《司法程序效能提升与供应链配置:“繁简分流”改革的证据》,《世界经济》第9期,第122~151页。 [16]谢德仁、郑登津和崔宸瑜,2016,《控股股东股权质押是潜在的“地雷”吗?——基于股价崩盘风险视角的研究》,《管理世界》第5期,第128~140+188页。 [17]徐晓燕和孙燕红,2008,《供应链企业财务困境的传递过程研究》,《中国管理科学》第4期,第132~139页。 [18]许楠、毛奕欢和刘浩,2024,《经营预算信息链式传递与供应链长鞭效应——基于信息溢出与风险自治的视角》,《金融研究》第11期,第38~56页。 [19]杨连星、李蔚和王秋硕,2023,《税收优惠、供应链传导与商业信用——基于留抵退税政策的准自然实验》,《经济研究》第58期,第41~58页。 [20]杨志强、唐松和李增泉,2020,《资本市场信息披露、关系型合约与供需长鞭效应——基于供应链信息外溢的经验证据》,《管理世界》第36期,第89~105+217~218页。 [21]袁劲、冯桂媚、李玲玲和刘啟仁,2023,《央地退税分担与企业采购的区位选择》,《经济研究》第58期,第134~151页。 [22]张三保、康璧成和张志学,2020,《中国省份营商环境评价:指标体系与量化分析》,《经济管理》第42期,第5~19页。 [23]张同斌和刘文龙,2024,《留抵退税改革、融资约束与企业产业链关联》,《管理世界》第40期,第94~115页。 [24]张新民、王珏和祝继高,2012,《市场地位、商业信用与企业经营性融资》,《会计研究》第58~65+97页。 [25]Acemoglu, D., V. M. Carvalho and A. Ozdaglar, 2012,“The Network Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations”, Econometrica, 80(5), pp. 1977~2016. [26]Acharya, V. V., S. T. Bharath and A. Srinivasan, 2007,“Does Industry-wide Distress Affect Defaulted Firms? Evidence from Creditor Recoveries”, Journal of Financial Economics, 85(3), pp. 787~821. [27]Biais, B. and C. Gollier, 1997,“Trade Credit and Credit Rationing”, The Review of Financial Studies, 10(4), pp. 903~937. [28]Chao, C.-C., W. L. Chou and E. S. H. Yu, 2001,“Export Duty Rebates and Export Performance: Theory and China's Experience”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(2), pp. 314~326. [29]Clark, X., D. Dollar and A. Micco, 2004,“Port Efficiency, Maritime Transport Costs, and Bilateral Trade”, Journal of Development Economics, 75(2), pp. 417~450. [30]Hadlock, C. J. and J. R. Pierce, 2010,“New Evidence on Measuring Financial Constraints: Moving Beyond the KZ Index”, The Review of Financial Studies, 23(5), pp. 1909~1940. [31]Haushalter, D., S. Klasa and W. F. Maxwell, 2007,“The Influence of Product Market Dynamics on a Firm's Cash Holdings and Hedging Behavior”, Journal of Financial Economics, 84(3), pp. 797~825. [32]Kutsuna, K., J. K. Smith and R. Smith, 2016,“Supply-chain Spillover Effects of IPOs”, Journal of Banking & Finance, 64, pp. 150~168. [33]Myers, S. C. and R. G. Rajan, 1998,“The Paradox of Liquidity”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), pp. 733~771. [34]Petersen, M. A. and R. G. Rajan, 1997,“Trade Credit: Theories and Evidence”, The Review of Financial Studies, 10(3), pp. 661~691. [35]Shan, J., S. Yang and S. Yang, 2014,“An Empirical Study of the Bullwhip Effect in China”, Production and Operations Management, 23(4), pp. 537~551. [36]Smith, J. K., 1987,“Trade Credit and Informational Asymmetry”, The Journal of Finance, 42(4), pp. 863~872. [37]Zaheer, A., B. McEvily and V. Perrone, 1998,“Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance”, Organization Science, 9(2), pp. 141~159.
