|
|
|
| Equity Network of Chinese Listed Companies and Technological Innovation: Based on the Perspective of Risk Sharing and Risk Contagion |
| LI Junqing, YUAN Bo, ZHANG Xueying
|
| School of Economics/Institute of Chinese Path to Modernization, Nankai University |
|
|
|
Abstract As the core subject of innovation, high-tech enterprises need to bear the high risks and uncertainties of technology research and development.The uncertainty of R&D has greatly dampened the R&D motivation of enterprises, making their innovation decisions more conservative. Therefore, to encourage technology innovation in enterprises, it is necessary to pay sufficient attention to the current risk predicament of enterprise innovation. The equity network of an enterprise has the nature of risk-sharing, which enables the equity network to effectively promote technology innovation by mitigating the R&D risks of the enterprise.
Based on Cabrales et al. (2017), this paper further introduces innovation decision-making into the game equilibrium framework of enterprise equity network, focuses on studying the influence of the equity network and its topological structure on micro-enterprise innovation, and then analyzes the formation mechanism of the topological structure of the equity network. Taking the data of listed companies on the main board of China A-share market from 2004 to 2023 as samples, this paper conducts very detailed empirical tests on the risk mechanism by which equity networks affect innovation. The test results confirmed our basic theoretical conclusion.
Our findings show that equity network and its large branches can promote innovation. The innovation decision will not only affect firm's own benefits and risks, but also affect related firms through the equity network. Therefore, the Nash equilibrium will determine the equilibrium state of innovation decisions. However, when firms cannot effectively form a stable equity network, due to the lack of risk sharing, firms can only choose a relatively low level of innovation to ensure security. Therefore, equity network promotes innovation through risk sharing. We also find that, within the large branches, large firms have high centrality (core), while small ones have low centrality (periphery), which forms a core-periphery structure (micro topology structure). The large firms have low innovation level, while the small ones have a higher level. This is because the internal topological structure directly determines the heterogeneity of the degree of risk contagion among firms with different scales. Therefore, firms located in the center need to have a more stable earnings and lower degree of innovation, in order to act as the “Ballast Stone” to maintain the stability of the whole branch, thus reducing the risk impact of internal firms; while the peripheral firms can have a higher degree of innovation.
Based on this, we put forward the following policy suggestions: The government can provide more policy support and guidance to large enterprises with a higher degree of centrality in the equity network, and take early preventive measures against the possible risk contagion of these important large enterprises to avoid a sudden increase in risks that could affect overall innovation in the network. In addition, the government can further improve the information disclosure mechanism and property rights trading system, and proactively guide enterprises of different types to carry out complementary cooperation in various forms such as equity links.
The possible contribution of this paper can be divided into three parts. Firstly, different from the non-institutional risk-sharing mechanisms by which social networks influence innovation in existing studies, this paper takes the enterprise equity network as the research subject, and explores the institutional risk-sharing mechanism, making up for the deficiencies of existing research. Secondly, this paper focuses on exploring the entire network economy system formed by enterprises through equity associations, rather than limiting the attention to the risk-sharing mechanism of the internal equity structure of a single enterprise in existing research. Thirdly, existing studies have focused more on the theoretical relationship between centrality and enterprise scale. On this basis, this paper further introduces the innovation behavior of enterprises and expands the endogenous formation mechanism of the equity network, clarifying the mechanism by which highly stable large enterprises occupying the central position of the network act as ballast stones, promoting technology innovation by reducing the risk level of the overall network branch. Based on the research in this paper, future studies can discuss the dynamic characteristics of the internal topological structure of the equity network, further internalization processing, and the uniqueness of enterprise attributes.
|
|
Received: 24 August 2024
Published: 01 September 2025
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
陈德球、孙颖和王丹,2021,《关系网络嵌入、联合创业投资与企业创新效率》,《经济研究》第11期,第67～83页。
|
| [2] |
丁从明、周颖和梁甄桥,2018,《南稻北麦、协作与信任的经验研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期,第579～608页。
|
| [3] |
段军山和庄旭东,2021,《金融投资行为与企业技术创新——动机分析与经验证据》,《中国工业经济》第1期,第155～173页。
|
| [4] |
赖烽辉和李善民,2023,《共同股东网络与国有企业创新知识溢出——基于国有企业考核制度变迁的实证研究》,《经济研究》第6期,第119～136页。
|
| [5] |
李俊青、张雪莹和袁博,2023,《社会网络异质性与人力资本误配》,《经济研究》第12期,第167～184页。
|
| [6] |
李双建、李俊青和张云,2020,《社会信任,商业信用融资与企业创新》,《南开经济研究》第3期,第81～102页。
|
| [7] |
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。
|
| [8] |
刘善仕、孙博、葛淳棉和王琪,2017,《人力资本社会网络与企业创新——基于在线简历数据的实证研究》,《管理世界》第7期,第88～98+119+188页。
|
| [9] |
宋灿和侯欣裕,2021,《股权网络结构对企业创新的影响:基于知识溢出效应的理论分析与实证检验》,《现代财经》第11期,第19～38页。
|
| [10] |
谭颖和杨筝,2020,《QFII持股与企业技术创新》,《金融论坛》第12期,第69～78页。
|
| [11] |
王雄元和秦江缘,2023,《创新竞争与企业高质量创新模式选择——来自专利被无效宣告的经验证据》,《经济研究》第11期,第80～98页。
|
| [12] |
王营和张光利,2018,《董事网络和企业创新:引资与引智》,《金融研究》第6期,第189～206页。
|
| [13] |
王竹泉、王贞洁和李静,2017,《经营风险与营运资金融资决策》,《会计研究》第5期,第60～67+97页。
|
| [14] |
杨鸣京、程小可和钟凯,2019,《股权质押对企业创新的影响研究——基于货币政策不确定性调节效应的分析》,《财经研究》第2期,第139～152页。
|
| [15] |
杨兴全、王丽丽和杨征,2021,《机构投资者网络关系与企业创新:信息资源和信息治理》,《当代财经》第11期,第76～88页。
|
| [16] |
姚健、臧旭恒和周博文,2024,《社会网络与中国家庭金融脆弱性》,《金融研究》第4期,第151～168页。
|
| [17] |
张红娟和谭劲松,2014,《联盟网络与企业创新绩效:跨层次分析》,《管理世界》第3期,第163～169页。
|
| [18] |
张伟华、郭盈良和张昕,2016,《纵向一体化、产权性质与企业投资效率》,《会计研究》第7期,第35～41+96页。
|
| [19] |
郑方、单文涛和王永青,2021,《连锁董事网络与企业动态创新能力——基于多重治理情境的调节作用》,《财经论丛》第11期,第77～88页。
|
| [20] |
Akcomak,S. and B. Weel,2009,“Social Capital,Innovation and Growth:Evidence from Europe”,European Economic Review,53(5),pp. 544～567.
|
| [21] |
Allen,F.,A. Babus and E. Carletti,2012,“Asset Commonality,Debt Maturity and Systemic Risk”,Journal of Financial Economics,104(3),pp. 519～534.
|
| [22] |
Allen,F. and D. Gale,2000,“Financial Contagion”,Journal of Political Economy,108(1),pp. 1～33.
|
| [23] |
Cabrales,A.,P. Gottardi and F. Vega-Redondo,2017,“Risk Sharing and Contagion in Networks”,Review of Financial Studies,30(9),pp. 3086～3127.
|
| [24] |
Cai,J. and N. Li,2019,“Growth Through Inter-sectoral Knowledge Linkages”,The Review of Economic Studies,86(5),pp.1827 ～1866.
|
| [25] |
Castellion,G. and S. Markham,2013,“Perspective:New Product Failure Rates:Influence of Argumentum ad Populum and Self-Interest”,Journal of Product Innovation Management,30(5),pp.976～979.
|
| [26] |
Freixas,X.,B. Parigi and J. C. Rochet,2000,“Systemic Risk, Interbank Relations and Liquidity Provision by the Central Bank”, Journal of Money,Credit,and Banking,32(3),pp. 611～638.
|
| [27] |
Leitner,Y.,2005,“Financial Networks:Contagion,Commitment and Private Sector Bailouts”,Journal of Finance,60(6), pp. 2925～2953.
|
| [28] |
Nahapiet,J. and S. Ghoshal,1998,“Social Capital,Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage”,Academy of Management Review,23(2),pp. 242～266.
|
| [29] |
Subramaniam,M. and M. A. Youndt,2005,“The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal,48(3),pp. 450～463.
|
| [30] |
Talhelm,T.,X. Zhang,S. Oishi,C. Shimin,D. Duan,X. Lan and S. Kitayama,2014,“Large-Scale Psychological Differences Within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture”,Science,344(6184),pp.603～608.
|
| [31] |
Tsai,W. and S. Ghoshal,1998,“Social Capital and Value Creation:The Role of Intrafirm Networks”,Academy of Management Journal,41(4),pp. 464～476.
|
|
|
|
