Enterprise innovation-driven development is an important support for improving social productivity and comprehensive national strength. The successful implementation of national innovation-driven development strategies depends not only on the continuous growth of enterprise innovation investment, but also on the improvement of the efficiency of innovation resource utilization in the process of enterprise innovation-driven development. Fiscal science and technology policy, as an important guarantee for the efficient operation of an enterprise′s innovation system, is an important engine for realizing enterprise′s innovation-driven development. While maintaining the rapid growth of financial investment in science and technology, has the fiscal science and technology policy improved the quality of innovation and the efficiency of innovation-driven development? How does fiscal technology policy affect the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development? In order to answer the above questions, this paper uses panel data of industrial enterprises in China at the industry level from 2009 to 2016 to empirically test the impact of fiscal science and technology policy on the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development, and explore the path through which fiscal science and technology policy mainly affect enterprise innovation-driven development. The specific research conclusions are as follows:First of all, fiscal science and technology policy has promoted the improvement of enterprise innovation-driven development efficiency, and this effect has obvious industry heterogeneity. Judging from the industry-wide inspection results, no matter whether the FE method or the D &K method is adopted, fiscal science and technology policy is conducive to improving the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development. From the perspective of resource and labor-intensive industries, although the impact coefficient of fiscal science and technology policy passed the significance level test in the FE method, it did not pass the significance level test after adopting the D&K method, indicating that the impact of fiscal science and technology policy on the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development is not significant. From the perspective of capital and technology-intensive industries, regardless of whether the FE method or the D&K method is used, the impact coefficient of fiscal science and technology policy is significantly positive, indicating that fiscal science and technology policies are conducive to improving the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development.Secondly, from the perspective of the role path, the promotion effect of fiscal science and technology policy on the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development is mainly achieved by improving the efficiency of technological research and development, rather than the efficiency of economic transformation. Judging from the inspection results of the entire industry, fiscal science and technology policy has significantly improved the efficiency of two stages of enterprise innovation-driven development, but fiscal science and technology policy has a stronger effect on the efficiency of technological research and development than economic transformation efficiency. Judging from the inspection results by industry, whether it is a resource and labor-intensive industry or a capital and technology-intensive industry, fiscal science and technology policy has a stronger effect on improving the efficiency of technological research and development than economic transformation efficiency. However, compared with the findings, fiscal science and technology policy in capital and technology-intensive industry has a stronger positive impact on the efficiency of the two stages of enterprise innovation-driven development.Thirdly, in the different thresholds of fiscal science and technology policy, the role of fiscal science and technology policy in promoting the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development shows a clear inverted "U" pattern. This paper uses fiscal science and technology policy as the threshold variable, and constructs a panel threshold model to empirically test the possible non-linear threshold relationship between fiscal science and technology policy and enterprise innovation-driven development efficiency. The research found that the impact of fiscal science and technology policy on the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development has a double-threshold effect based on fiscal science and technology policy. Finally, there are industry differences in the impact of different types of fiscal science and technology policy on the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development. This paper empirically tests the impact of different types of fiscal science and technology policy on the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development and their differences. From the inspection results of resource and labor-intensive industry, direct government subsidies have significantly improved the efficiency of enterprise innovation-driven development, while the estimated coefficients of direct tax benefits and indirect tax benefits have not passed the significance level test. From the test results of capital and technology-intensive industry, direct government subsidies have a stronger promotion effect on enterprise innovation-driven development efficiency than direct tax incentives, while indirect tax incentives are relatively weak.This article mainly proposes policy suggestions to promote the improvement of enterprises innovation-driven development efficiency from the following aspects: First of all, fiscal science and technology policy should adopt policy incentives that take into account industry coordination and appropriate incentive levels. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify the priorities of fiscal science and technology policy incentives to meet the innovation needs of enterprises at different stages. Finally, strengthen the enterprises′ own capacity building and stimulate the enthusiasm for innovation.
Key words
fiscal science and technology policy /
enterprise innovation-driven development efficiency /
technology research and development efficiency /
economic transformation efficiency
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1]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 (2): 87-104.
[2]郑威, 陆远权. 金融分权、地方官员激励与企业创新投入[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2018, 30(5): 49-58.
[3]潘越, 潘健平, 戴亦一. 公司诉讼风险、司法地方保护主义与企业创新[J]. 经济研究, 2015 (3): 131-145.
[4]程刚, 李倩. 企业实施创新驱动发展战略的隐性知识转移模式研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2014, 37(3):101-105.
[5]谈志琴. 企业实施创新驱动发展战略的策略与路径[J]. 经济视野, 2014(9):126-126.
[6]郑春美, 余媛. 高新技术企业创新驱动发展动力机制研究——基于制度环境视角[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2015(24):71-76.
[7]游达明, 孙理. 企业创新驱动发展模式选择[J]. 统计与决策, 2017(7):178-181.
[8]李永周, 袁波. 基于投入产出分析的区域创新驱动效率测度[J]. 统计与决策, 2018(8):95-99.
[9]吴卫红, 李娜娜, 张爱美, 等. 我国省域创新驱动发展效率评价及提升路径实证研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2017(5):63-69.
[10]王智新, 梁翠. 县域创新驱动发展效率评价及激励政策研究[J]. 科学管理研究, 2018, 224(3):50-53.
[11] 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]. Rand Journal of Economics, 2000, 31(1): 82-100.
[12] Patanakul P., Pinto J. K. Examining the Roles of Government Policy on Innovation[J]. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2014, 25(2): 97-107.
[13]曹艳杰, 陈明森, 苏国灿. 财税激励有利于提升企业创新效率吗?[J]. 东南学术, 2018(2):96-104.
[14]白俊红, 李婧. 政府R&D资助与企业技术创新——基于效率视角的实证分析[J]. 金融研究, 2011 (6): 181-193.
[15]李晨光, 张永安. 区域创新政策对企业创新效率影响的实证研究[J]. 科研管理, 2014, 35(9):25-35.
[16] Greco M., Locatelli G., Lisi S. Open Innovation in the Power & Energy Sector: Bringing Together Government Policies, Companies’ Interests, and Academic Essence[J]. Energy Policy, 2017(104): 316-324.
[17]张玉, 陈凯华, 乔为国. 中国大中型企业研发效率测度与财政激励政策影响[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2017 (5): 38-54.
[18]洪银兴. 关于创新驱动和协同创新的若干重要概念[J]. 经济理论与经济管理, 2013(5): 5-12.
[19]Aghion P., Dechezleprêtre A., Hémous D., et al. Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2012, 124(1): 1-51.
[20]孙晓华, 王昀, 徐冉. 金融发展、融资约束缓解与企业研发投资[J]. 科研管理, 2015, 36(5): 47-54.
[21]邱斌, 杨帅, 辛培江等. FDI技术溢出渠道与中国制造业生产率增长研究: 基于面板数据的分析[J]. 世界经济, 2008, 31(8): 20-31.
[22]程惠芳, 陆嘉俊. 知识资本对工业企业全要素生产率影响的实证分析[J]. 经济研究, 2014 (5): 174-187.
[23]陈修德, 梁彤缨. 中国高新技术产业研发效率及其影响因素——基于面板数据SFPF模型的实证研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2010 (8): 1198-1205.
[24]熊维勤. 税收和补贴政策对R&D效率和规模的影响——理论与实证研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2011, 29(5): 698-706.
[25]王利. 中国大中型工业企业创新驱动增长的测度与分析[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2015 (11) : 90-104.
[26]王海宁, 陈媛媛. 产业集聚效应与地区工资差异研究[J]. 经济评论, 2010 (5): 72-81.
[27]余伟, 陈强, 陈华. 环境规制、技术创新与经营绩效——基于37个工业行业的实证分析[J]. 科研管理, 2017 (2): 18-25.
[28]肖文, 林高榜. 政府支持、研发管理与技术创新效率——基于中国工业行业的实证分析[J]. 管理世界, 2014( 4): 71-80.
[29]康志勇. 金融错配阻碍了中国本土企业创新吗?[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2014 (5): 63-72.
[30]Driscoll J. C., Kraay A. C. Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Spatially Dependent Panel Data[J]. Review of Economics & Statistics, 1998, 80(4): 549-560.
[31]陶锋, 胡军, 李诗田等. 金融地理结构如何影响企业生产率?——兼论金融供给侧结构性改革[J]. 经济研究, 2017 (9): 55-71.
[32]Qian Y., Xu C. Innovation and Bureaucracy Under Soft and Hard Budget Constraints[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2010, 65(1): 151-164.
[33]吴延兵. 中国哪种所有制类型企业最具创新性?[J]. 世界经济, 2012 (6): 3-29.
[34]毛艳华, 李敬子. 中国服务业出口的本地市场效应研究[J]. 经济研究, 2015 (8): 98-113.
[35]戴魁早, 刘友金. 要素市场扭曲与创新效率——对中国高技术产业发展的经验分析[J]. 经济研究, 2016 (7): 72-86.
[36]Hansen B. E. Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing and Inference[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 1999, 93(2): 345-368.