|
|
|
| Industrial Policy, Innovation Behavior and Firms' Markups: Research on the Policy of Strategic Emerging Industries |
| ZHU Zhujun, SONG Xueyin, ZHANG Shengli, CHEN Lifang
|
School of Economics,Zhejiang Gongshang University;
School of Economics,Zhejiang University;
Xiamen National Accounting Institute |
|
|
|
Abstract During the 14th Five-Year Plan period, China has set forth new requirements for the development of strategic emerging industries and new goals of “characteristic development, complementary advantages and reasonable structure.” Industrial development should focus on seizing opportunities for future industrial development and cultivating leading and pillar industries. However, it remains unclear how to develop strategic emerging industries and transform industrial policy support from quantity-oriented to quality-and efficiency-oriented.
This paper studies the mechanism and effective support space of industrial policy on firms' markups. The results show that first, the strategic emerging industry policy has significant positive effect ,because firm's productivity and R&D are relatively high in this industry.Second, in terms of the mechanism, strategic emerging industry policies affect firms' markups through the cost and price channels. Currently(1998-2013), the negative cost effect is greater than the positive price effect, resulting in an overall negative effect. Third, in terms of heterogeneity, the industrial technology gap has a significant negative moderating effect on firms' markups, and a positive trend is observed between this effect and the technological convergence level. Fourth, further analysis shows that the innovation trap of focusing on quantity but neglecting quality, a consequence of support, is the main cause of decreasing overall markups.
This paper presents innovations in several areas. Theoretically, it explores the mechanism by which industrial policy affects firms' markups in the context of China's efforts to catch up with more developed economies. It amends industrial policy support theory and considers the technology gap in its conceptualization of the support space. Empirically, this paper reveals the effect of the strategic emerging industries policy on firm markups. Previous studies have obvious sample selection bias and fail to observe dynamic changes in markups (Lu et al., 2014; Liu, 2016). This paper uses industrial firm database records from 1998 to 2013 to study the effect of the strategic emerging industries policy, and it uses patent data with complete citation information to estimate patent quality. The innovation incentive of emphasizing quantity but neglecting quality, a consequence of the strategic emerging industry policy, is identified as the main cause of the negative markup effect. In terms of policy, this paper provides empirical evidence for the optimal implementation space of industrial policy. From the perspective of the technology gap, this paper provides an effective approach to optimizing the policy implementation space and to promoting the dynamic evolution of government support from pioneering to enabling. This transition can enhance the effectiveness of industrial policy and promote the development of high-quality innovations.
This paper also has several policy implications. First, the levels of industrial development, quality and efficiency should be considered crucial targets of industrial policy support. Policymakers should consider relaxing the assessment of the total number of patents and number of patents per capita, not setting binding indicators, reducing selective subsidies, strengthening the dynamic tracking of patent implementation and rewarding patent achievements with a good industrialization effect and high degree of marketization at a later time. Also, the combination of industrial policy implementation and the industrial technology gap should be maintained. Second, optimization of the market environment and government functions is a crucial strategy to improve the quality of strategic emerging industries. In the early stage, industrial development mainly depends on a high-quality business environment and competitive neutral market environment, and the government effectively handles market competition as a regulator. When the technology gap is relatively small, the government should effectively manage market competition and drive innovation as an enabler. Third, the deep integration of strategic emerging industries and various industries should be targeted for the optimization of industrial policy. A reliance on high-quality innovations by strategic emerging industries should expand the number of important products and key core technologies in the industrial supply chain, focus on upstream core links and enhance the ability of the chain owner to lead and drive the industrial supply chain. Key departments should be created to effectively link the innovation and industrial chains and enhance modernization of the industrial and supply chains.
|
|
Received: 27 April 2020
Published: 02 July 2021
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
安同良、魏婕和舒欣,2020,《中国制造业企业创新测度——基于微观创新调查的跨期比较》,《中国社会科学》第3期,第99～122页。
|
| [2] |
陈林、万攀兵和许莹盈,2019,《混合所有制企业的股权结构与创新行为——基于自然实验与断点回归的实证检验》,《管理世界》第10期,第186～205页。
|
| [3] |
黄先海和宋学印,2017,《准前沿经济体的技术进步路径及动力转换——从“追赶导向”到“竞争导向”》,《中国社会科学》第6期,第61～80页。
|
| [4] |
黄先海、宋学印和诸竹君,2015,《中国产业政策的最优实施空间界定——补贴效应、竞争兼容与过剩破解》,《中国工业经济》第4期,第59～71页。
|
| [5] |
江飞涛和李晓萍,2018,《改革开放四十年中国产业政策演进与发展——兼论中国产业政策体系的转型》,《管理世界》第10期,第79～91页。
|
| [6] |
黎文靖和郑曼妮,2016,《实质性创新还是策略性创新？——宏观产业政策对微观企业创新的影响》,《经济研究》第4期,第60～73页。
|
| [7] |
林毅夫、向为和余淼杰,2018,《区域型产业政策与企业生产率》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期,第781～800页。
|
| [8] |
柳光强,2016,《税收优惠、财政补贴政策的激励效应分析——基于信息不对称理论视角的实证研究》,《管理世界》第10期,第62～71页。
|
| [9] |
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30～55页。
|
| [10] |
陆国庆、王舟和张春宇,2014,《中国战略性新兴产业政府创新补贴的竞争力研究》,《经济研究》第7期,第44～55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] |
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。
|
| [13] |
张莉、朱光顺、李世刚和李夏洋,2019,《市场环境、重点产业政策与企业生产率差异》,《管理世界》第3期,第120～132页。
|
| [14] |
朱建民和史旭丹,2015,《产业集群社会资本对创新竞争力的影响研究——基于产业集群生命周期视角》,《科学学研究》第3期,第449～459页。
|
| [15] |
诸竹君、黄先海、宋学印、胡馨月和王煌,2017,《劳动力成本上升、倒逼式创新与中国企业加成率动态》,《世界经济》第8期,第55～79页。
|
| [16] |
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。
|
| [17] |
Acemoglu, D., P. Aghion and F. Zilibotti, 2006, “Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(1): 37～74.
|
| [18] |
Agarwal, R. and M. Gort, 2002, “Firm and Product Life Cycles and Firm Survival”, American Economic Review, 92 (2): 184～190.
|
| [19] |
Aghion, P., R. Blundell, R. Griffith, P. Howitt and S. Prantl, 2009, “The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 91 (1): 20～32.
|
| [20] |
Aghion, P., J. Cai, M. Dewatripont, L. Du, A. Harrison and P. Legros, 2015, “Industrial Policy and Competition”, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 7 (4): 1～32.
|
| [21] |
Beason, R. and D. E. Weinstein, 1996, “Growth, Economies of Scale, and Targeting in Japan (1955～1990)”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (2): 286～295.
|
| [22] |
Cotti, C. and M. Skidmore, 2010, “The Impact of State Government Subsidies and Tax Credits in an Emerging Industry: Ethanol Production 1980-2007”, Southern Economic Journal, 76 (4): 1076～1093.
|
| [23] |
De Loecker, J. and F. Warzynski, 2012, “Markups and Firm-Level Export Status”, American Economic Review, 102 (6): 2437～2471.
|
| [24] |
Garcia-Macia, D, C. T. Hsieh and P. J. Klenow, 2019, “How Destructive is Innovation？ ” Econometrica, 87 (5): 1507～1541.
|
| [25] |
Hall, B. H., A. Jaffe and M. Trajtenberg, 2005, “Market Value and Patent Citations”, RAND Journal of Economics, 36 (1): 16～38.
|
| [26] |
Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, J. Smith and P. Todd, 1998, “Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data”, Econometrica, 66 (5): 1017～1098.
|
| [27] |
Khachoo, Q., R. Sharma and M. Dhanora, 2018, “Does Proximity to the Frontier Facilitate FDI-Spawned Spillovers on Innovation and Productivity？ ” Journal of Economics and Business, 97: 39～49.
|
| [28] |
Klapper, L., L. Laeven and R. Rajan, 2006, “Entry Regulation as a Barrier to Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Financial Economics, 82 (3): 591～629.
|
| [29] |
Klepper, S., 1996, “Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle”, American Economic Review, 86 (3): 562～583.
|
| [30] |
Lu, Y. and L. Yu, 2015, “Trade Liberalization and Markup Dispersion: Evidence from China's WTO Accession”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7 (4): 221～253.
|
| [31] |
Mann, W., 2018, “Creditor Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Patent Collateral”, Journal of Financial Economics, 130 (1): 25～47.
|
| [32] |
Marra, A., P. Antonelli, L. Dell’Anna, et al., 2015, “A Network Analysis Using Metadata to Investigate Innovation in Clean-Tech-Implications for Energy Policy”, Energy Policy, 86: 17～26.
|
| [33] |
Minniti, A. and F. Venturini, 2017, “R&D Policy, Productivity Growth and Distance to Frontier”, Economics Letters, 156: 92～94.
|
| [34] |
Özak, Ö., 2018, “Distance to the Pre-Industrial Technological Frontier and Economic Development”, Journal of Economic Growth, 23 (2): 175～221.
|
| [35] |
Segerstrom, P. S., T. C. A. Anant and E. Dinopoulos. 1990, “A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle”, American Economic Review, 80 (5): 1077～1091.
|
|
|
|
