Can the change in distribution method of financial subsidy promote enterprise innovation?

Zhang Jianshun, Xie Hongtao

Science Research Management ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (10) : 61-70.

PDF(469 KB)
PDF(469 KB)
Science Research Management ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (10) : 61-70.

Can the change in distribution method of financial subsidy promote enterprise innovation?

  • Zhang Jianshun1, Xie Hongtao2
Author information +
History +

Abstract

   The government′s rational distribution of financial subsidy to inspire enterprise innovation is an important path to realize the transformation of economic growth from factor-driven economy to innovation-driven economy. However, during the implementation of China′s financial subsidy policy, rent-seeking and fraudulent compensation problems have emerged. How to optimize the financial subsidy policy and improve the efficiency of the use of financial subsidy is an urgent problem to be solved. Based on the existing literature, this paper discusses the impact and mechanism of financial subsidy on enterprise innovation from the perspective of distribution of financial subsidy.
    Based on the 2010-2015 national taxation survey data, this paper takes the reform of the competitive distribution of specific financial funds as a quasi-natural experiment, and uses the difference-in-difference method to examine the impact of competitive distribution procedure on enterprise innovation. The competitive distribution procedure means to transform the distribution of financial subsidy from one-to-one to one-to-many. The results show that, compared with the traditional distribution procedure, the competitive distribution procedure can better stimulate enterprise innovation. The average innovation investment will increase by 286,310 yuan, and the innovation intensity (the proportion of innovation investment in operating income) will increase by 0.176%. In order to ensure the applicability of the difference-in-difference method, this paper carries out a parallel trend test, the event study results prove that the parallel trend exists. The dynamic effect test shows that changes in the distribution procedure of financial subsidy have brought about a rapid increase in enterprise innovation input and innovation intensity in the following years.
   This conclusion is still robust after a series of robustness tests. Specifically, using the average value of innovation input and the average value of innovation input intensity in the past three years as dependent variables to solve the worry that companies may whitewash innovation investment. By adding the province-level control variables and time polynomial interaction terms, and industry dummy variables to control the influence of different development trends between provinces and industries. Constructing a "hypothetical" treatment group for placebo testing, the results show that in the case of randomly determining the treatment group, the benchmark regression results are unlikely to appear.
    Mechanism analysis results show that the competitive distribution procedure encourages enterprise innovation through two channels: "selection effect" and "certification effect". The selection effect means that the government can select high-innovation companies with stronger positive externalities based on the company′s innovation information and provide high financial subsidy. The certification effect means that the government grants financial subsidy according to the innovation ability of enterprises, so that financial subsidy can be used as a certification signal of the quality of enterprise innovation and solve the failure of the innovation financing market.
    In order to comprehensively examine the impact of the competitive distribution procedure on enterprise innovation, the government behavior, market environment and enterprise scale are included in the analysis framework. The results show that increased pressure on GDP-based performance appraisal will weaken the effect of competitive distribution procedure on enterprise innovation. Besides, the increase in marketization will enhance the effect of competitive distribution procedure on enterprise innovation, meaning that good market competition environment helps to establish a fair and just competitive financial subsidy procedure. In addition, the competitive distribution procedure has a more obvious effect on small-scale enterprises′ innovation input. The reason may be that large-scale companies have stronger financing capabilities, and relatively speaking, the certification effect has limited effect on their innovation decision-making, while small companies have weak financing capabilities and need to use the government′s certification effect to ease the financing constraints encountered in the innovation process.
    Based on the above conclusion, this paper puts forward the following suggestions. First, it′s necessary to actively promote the competitive distribution reform of financial subsidy, including the developing of a simple and efficient fiscal subsidy distribution process, reducing the burden of enterprise application, avoiding ownership discrimination and scale discrimination; and enhancing the independence and professionalism of the project review expert team. Second, changing the traditional GDP-based assessment system and adding enterprise innovation indicators to the assessment system, which can encourage officials to formulate policies in accordance with time and place to stimulate enterprise innovation. Third, it′s important to improve the level of marketization, clarify the decisive role of the market in the distribution of resources, and provide the necessary institutional conditions for the effective operation of the market mechanism.

Key words

financial subsidy / competitive distribution / enterprise innovation / quasi-natural experiment

Cite this article

Download Citations
Zhang Jianshun, Xie Hongtao. Can the change in distribution method of financial subsidy promote enterprise innovation?[J]. Science Research Management. 2022, 43(10): 61-70

References

[1] Dai X, Cheng L. Public selection and research and development effort of manufacturing enterprises in China: state owned enterprises versus non-state owned enterprises[J]. Innovation, 2015, 17(2): 182-195.
[2] 赵玉林,谷军健.政府补贴分配倾向与创新激励的结构性偏差——基于中国制造业上市公司匹配样本分析[J].财政研究,2018(04):61-74.
[3] 余明桂, 回雅甫, 潘红波. 政治联系, 寻租与地方政府财政补贴有效性[J]. 经济研究, 2010, 45(3): 65-77.
[4] 孔东民, 刘莎莎, 王亚男. 市场竞争, 产权与政府补贴[J]. 经济研究, 2013 (2): 55-67.
[5] 邢斐, 王红建. 企业规模、市场竞争与研发补贴的实施绩效[J]. 科研管理, 2018(7).
[6] Nelson R R. The simple economics of basic scientific research[J]. Journal of political economy, 1959, 67(3): 297-306.
[7] Arrow K J. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention[M]//Readings in industrial economics. Palgrave, London, 1972: 219-236.
[8] Lerner J. The government as venture capitalist: The long-run effects of the SBIR program[R]. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1996.
[9] Foray D. Why is it so difficult to translate innovation economics into useful and applicable policy prescriptions?[M]//The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited. University of Chicago Press, 2011: 673-678.
[10] Boeing P. The allocation and effectiveness of China’s R&D subsidies-Evidence from listed firms[J]. Research policy, 2016, 45(9): 1774-1789.
[11] Wolff G B, Reinthaler V. The effectiveness of subsidies revisited: Accounting for wage and employment effects in business R&D[J]. Research Policy, 2008, 37(8): 1403-1412.
[12] Aschhoff B. The effect of subsidies on R&D investment and success–Do subsidy history and size matter?[J]. 2009.
[13] 白俊红. 中国的政府R&D资助有效吗? 来自大中型工业企业的经验证据[J]. 经济学(季刊), 2011, 10(4):1375-1400.
[14] Wallsten S J. The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the Small Business Innovation Research program[J]. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2000: 82-100.
[15] 张帆, 孙薇. 政府创新补贴效率的微观机理: 激励效应和挤出效应的叠加效应——理论解释与检验[J]. 财政研究, 2018, 4: 004.
[16] Falk R. Behavioural Additionality Effects of R & D-subsidies: Empirical Evidence from Austria[M]. ?sterr. Inst. für Wirtschaftsforschung, 2004.
[17] Liu X, Cheng P. National strategy of indigenous innovation and its implication to China[J]. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 2014, 3(1): 117-139.
[18] 李瑞茜,白俊红.政府R&D资助对企业技术创新的影响——基于门槛回归的实证研究[J].中国经济问题,2013(03):11-23.
[19] G?rg, Holger, and Eric Strobl. "The effect of R&D subsidies on private R&D." Economica 74.294 (2007): 215-234.
[20] 张杰,陈志远,杨连星,新夫.中国创新补贴政策的绩效评估:理论与证据[J].经济研究, 2015(10):4-17.
[21] 赵康生,谢识予.政府研发补贴对企业研发投入的影响——基于中国上市公司的实证研究[J].世界经济文汇,2017(02):87-104.
[22] 刘虹, 肖美凤, 唐清泉. R&D补贴对企业R&D支出的激励与挤出效应——基于中国上市公司数据的实证分析[J]. 经济管理, 2012(4).
[23] 武咸云,陈艳,杨卫华.战略性新兴产业的政府补贴与企业R&D投入[J].科研管理,2016,37(05):19-23.
[24] 马嘉楠,翟海燕,董静.财政科技补贴及其类别对企业研发投入影响的实证研究[J].财政研究,2018(02):77-87.
[25] 范子英,田彬彬.税收竞争、税收执法与企业避税[J].经济研究,2013,48(09):99-111.
[26] Gentzkow M. Television and voter turnout[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2006, 121(3): 931-972.
[27] Chen Y J, Li P, Lu Y. Career concerns and multitasking local bureaucrats: Evidence of a target-based performance evaluation system in China[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2018, 133: 84-101.
[28] Meuleman M, De Maeseneire W. Do R&D subsidies affect SMEs’ access to external financing?[J]. Research Policy, 2012, 41(3): 580-591.
[29] Jacobson L S, LaLonde R J, Sullivan D G. Earnings losses of displaced workers[J]. The American economic review, 1993: 685-709.
[30] Chetty R, Looney A, Kroft K. Salience and taxation: Theory and evidence[J]. American economic review, 2009, 99(4): 1145-77.
[31] 周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究,2007(07):36-50.
[32] 聂辉华,蒋敏杰.政企合谋与矿难:来自中国省级面板数据的证据[J].经济研究,2011,46(06):146-156.
PDF(469 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/