|
|
|
| Digital Infrastructure and Household Investment in Risky Financial Assets: Evidence from the “Broadband China” Policy |
| LI Qingyuan, YU Miao, DONG Yanfei, HUANG Wei
|
The Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences;
National School of Development, Peking University |
|
|
|
Abstract Investment in risky financial assets is a critical topic in household finance, bearing significant implications for increasing household property income and fostering the healthy development of financial markets. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee emphasized the need to increase urban and rural residents' property income through multiple channels, and to advance the five major areas in the financial sector (technology finance, green finance, inclusive finance, pension finance and digital finance). However, household participation in China's risky financial markets has remained low. This limited participation not only constrains households' ability to accumulate wealth and diversify risks through financial investments but also highlights the urgency for financial innovation. In recent years, digital infrastructure has emerged as a vital driving force and strategic domain for socioeconomic development, profoundly reshaping the financial ecosystem, information environment, and social networks. These transformations may exert a systematic influence on household investment decisions. Thus, investigating how digital infrastructure impacts household investment in risky financial assets holds significant theoretical and practical value for understanding household financial behavior in the digital age and advancing the development of inclusive finance.
This paper aims to analyze whether and how digital infrastructure influences household investment in risky financial assets. We employ an approach that combines theoretical and empirical analyses. First, drawing on intertemporal asset allocation theory and institutional economics, we incorporate digital infrastructure into the framework of household utility maximization and introduce an institutional friction cost function. This function delineates the mechanism through which digital infrastructure influences household investment decisions via channels such as reducing market frictions, enhancing financial accessibility, alleviating information asymmetry, and improving financial literacy, while emphasizing the synergistic effect of technology penetration and the institutional environment on the demand for risky assets. Second, we utilize the Chinese government-led “Broadband China” policy (piloted in three batches from 2014 to 2016) to design a quasi-natural experiment. Using data from the China Household Finance Survey (CHFS) covering the period 2011-2019, we employ the difference-in-differences (DID) method and event study methodology to identify the causal effects of digital infrastructure. Additionally, we conduct robustness checks using methods including PSM-DID, instrumental variable approach, placebo tests, and exclusion of confounding factors. For the mechanism analysis, we also use both macro and micro data such as the The Peking University Digital Financial Inclusion Index of China and Baidu Index.
The main findings are as follows: First, digital infrastructure significantly enhances household allocation to risky financial assets. The policy increased the probability of households investing in risky financial assets by 3.5 percentage points (25% of the pre-policy mean), the investment amount by 41%, and the portfolio share by 1.6 percentage points (29% of the pre-policy mean). Crucially, the policy effect exhibits a time-progressive dynamic pattern, revealing the long-term cumulative nature of technological penetration and institutional arrangements. Second, compared to low-income, low-education, and rural households, high-income, high-education, and urban households exhibit significantly higher participation rates in risky financial markets. This finding provides micro-level evidence supporting the digital divide theory and indicates that resource endowment disparities profoundly shape the real-world effectiveness of technology-driven inclusive finance policies. Third, mechanism analysis demonstrates that digital infrastructure reshapes household investment behavior through multiple channels: promoting digital finance development (especially expanding coverage and deepening implementation), broadening information access channels, enhancing financial literacy, and strengthening social networks and social trust.
Policy implications are as follows: (1) Reinforce the strategic supporting role of digital infrastructure, advancing R&D and application of technologies deeply integrated with financial services to solidify the foundational ecosystem of digital finance. (2) Optimize the digital financial ecosystem by upgrading inclusive finance platforms and the credit reporting system to precisely respond to household needs (e.g., credit, wealth management) and enhance service inclusivity. (3) Bridge the digital dividend imbalance by employing targeted subsidies to promote the penetration of low-threshold financial services into rural areas, and implementing digital skills and financial literacy training programs to activate the investment capabilities of vulnerable groups. (4) Foster a secure financial environment by strengthening regulation of digital finance businesses and high-risk investments, preventing financial fraud, cultivating social trust, and guiding rational investment.
|
|
Received: 11 March 2024
Published: 02 July 2025
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
方福前、田鸽和张勋,2023,《数字基础设施与代际收入向上流动性——基于“宽带中国”战略的准自然实验》,《经济研究》第5期,第79～97页。
|
| [2] |
郭士祺和梁平汉,2014,《社会互动、信息渠道与家庭股市参与——基于2011年中国家庭金融调查的实证研究》,《经济研究》第S1期,第116～131页。
|
| [3] |
黄群慧、余泳泽和张松林,2019,《互联网发展与制造业生产率提升:内在机制与中国经验》,《中国工业经济》第8期,第5～23页。
|
| [4] |
黄炜、张子尧和刘安然,2022,《从双重差分法到事件研究法》,《产业经济评论》第2期,第17～36页。
|
| [5] |
李涛和郭杰,2009,《风险态度与股票投资》,《经济研究》第2期,第56～67页。
|
| [6] |
李增福和云锋,2023,《网络基础设施建设与企业会计稳健性——基于“宽带中国”战略的准自然实验研究》,《外国经济与管理》第1期,第104～120页。
|
| [7] |
刘传明和马青山,2020,《网络基础设施建设对全要素生产率增长的影响研究——基于“宽带中国”试点政策的准自然实验》,《中国人口科学》第3期,第75～88+127～128页。
|
| [8] |
马光荣和杨恩艳,2011,《社会网络、非正规金融与创业》,《经济研究》第3 期,第83～94页。
|
| [9] |
齐秀琳和江求川,2023,《数字经济与农民工就业:促进还是挤出？——来自“宽带中国”政策试点的证据》,《中国农村观察》第1期,第59～77页。
|
| [10] |
田鸽和张勋,2022,《数字经济、非农就业与社会分工》,《管理世界》第5期,第72～84页。
|
| [11] |
王伟同和周佳音,2019,《互联网与社会信任:微观证据与影响机制》,《财贸经济》第10期,第111～125页。
|
| [12] |
吴卫星和齐天翔,2007,《流动性、生命周期与投资组合相异性——中国投资者行为调查实证分析》,《经济研究》第2期,第97～110页。
|
| [13] |
吴雨、李晓、李洁和周利,2021,《数字金融发展与家庭金融资产组合有效性》,《管理世界》第7期,第92～104+7页。
|
| [14] |
谢平、邹传伟和刘海二,2015,《互联网金融的基础理论》,《金融研究》第8期,第1～12页。
|
| [15] |
易行健和周利,2018,《数字普惠金融发展是否显著影响了居民消费——来自中国家庭的微观证据》,《金融研究》第11期,第47～67页。
|
| [16] |
尹志超、宋全云和吴雨,2014,《金融知识、投资经验与家庭资产选择》,《经济研究》第4期,第62～75页。
|
| [17] |
尹志超、吴雨和甘犁,2015,《金融可得性、金融市场参与和家庭资产选择》,《经济研究》第3期,第87～99页。
|
| [18] |
张涛和李均超,2023,《网络基础设施、包容性绿色增长与地区差距——基于双重机器学习的因果推断》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第4期,第113～135页。
|
| [19] |
张勋、万广华、张佳佳和何宗樾,2019,《数字经济、普惠金融与包容性增长》,《经济研究》第8期,第71～86页。
|
| [20] |
张子尧和黄炜,2023,《事件研究法的实现、问题和拓展》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第9期,第 71～92页。
|
| [21] |
周聪,2020,《家庭风险金融市场有限参与之谜评述》,《投资研究》第6期,第 99～110页。
|
| [22] |
周广肃和丁相元,2023,《数字金融、流动性约束与共同富裕——基于代际流动视角》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第4期,第160～179页。
|
| [23] |
周广肃和梁琪,2018,《互联网使用、市场摩擦与家庭风险金融资产投资》,《金融研究》第1期,第84～101页。
|
| [24] |
周雨晴和何广文,2020,《数字普惠金融发展对农户家庭金融资产配置的影响》,《当代经济科学》第3期,第92～105页。
|
| [25] |
宗庆庆、刘冲和周亚虹,2015,《社会养老保险与我国居民家庭风险金融资产投资——来自中国家庭金融调查(CHFS)的证据》,《金融研究》第10期,第99～114页。
|
| [26] |
Alan, S., 2006, “Entry Costs and Stock Market Participation over the Life Cycle”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 9(4), pp.588～611.
|
| [27] |
Arrow, K. J., 1962, “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), pp.155～173.
|
| [28] |
Bogan, V., 2008, “Stock Market Participation and the Internet”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43(1), pp.191～211.
|
| [29] |
Flavin, M. and T. Yamashita, 2011, “Owner-Occupied Housing: Life-Cycle Implications for the Household Portfolio”, The American Economic Review, 101(3), pp.609～614.
|
| [30] |
Georgarakos, D. and G. Pasini, 2011, “Trust, Sociability and Stock Market Participation”, Review of Finance, 15(4), pp.693～725.
|
| [31] |
Goodman-Bacon, A., 2021, “Difference-in-differences with Variation in Treatment Timing”, Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), pp.254～277.
|
| [32] |
Guiso, L., P. Sapienza and L. Zingales, 2008, “Trusting the Stock Market”, The Journal of Finance, 63(6), pp.2557～2600.
|
| [33] |
Guiso, L., P. Sapienza and L. Zingales, 2018, “Time Varying Risk Aversion”, Journal of Financial Economics, 128(3), pp.403～421.
|
| [34] |
Guiso, L., T. Jappelli and D. Terlizzese, 1996, “Income Risk, Borrowing Constraints, and Portfolio Choice”, The American Economic Review, 86(1), pp.158～172.
|
| [35] |
Hong, H., J. D. Kubik and J. C. Stein, 2004, “Social Interaction and Stock-Market Participation”, The Journal of Finance, 59(1), pp.137～163.
|
| [36] |
Hvide, H. K., T. G. Meling, M. Mogstad and O. L. Vestad, 2024, “Broadband Internet and the Stock Market Investments of Individual Investors”, The Journal of Finance, 79(3), pp.2163～2194.
|
| [37] |
Kaustia, M. and S. Knüpfer, 2012, “Peer Performance and Stock Market Entry”, Journal of Financial Economics, 104(2), pp.321～338.
|
| [38] |
Li, G., 2014, “Information Sharing and Stock Market Participation: Evidence from Extended Families”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(1), pp.151～160.
|
| [39] |
Merton, R. C., 1971, “Optimum Consumption and Portfolio Rules in a Continuous-time Model”, Journal of Economic Theory, 3, pp.373～413.
|
| [40] |
Merton, R. C., 1973, “An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model”, Econometrica, 41, p.867.
|
| [41] |
North, D. C., 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
| [42] |
Sun, L. and S. Abraham, 2021, “Estimating Dynamic Treatment Effects in Event Studies with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects”, Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), pp.175～199.
|
| [43] |
van Rooij, M., A. Lusardi and R. Alessie, 2011, “Financial Literacy and Stock Market Participation”, Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), pp.449～472.
|
|
|
|
