Side-by-side Chinese-English

开发区政策有利于促进当地企业出口参与吗——基于双重差分方法的验证

卞泽阳1 强永昌2 李志远2,3,4

(1.上海理工大学管理学院)
(2.复旦大学经济学院)
(3.上海国际金融与经济研究院)
(4.复旦平安宏观经济研究中心)

【摘要】本文探讨了国家级开发区(包括经济技术开发区和高新技术产业开发区)的设立对城市企业出口参与的影响,基于Melitz (2003)模型,将企业出口固定成本内生化,得出集聚经济有利于降低出口固定成本,提高企业进入出口市场概率的结论。同时利用2000—2014年204个地级市层面的面板数据,采用双重差分方法对政策导向型的开发区集聚经济是否促进当地企业出口参与的效果进行了实证检验,研究结果表明:在控制了城市的经济变量、时间效应和地区效应后,国家级开发区的设立能够使城市每年出口企业数量的增长率显著增加15. 7%;进一步考察这种政策效果的时效性,发现国家级开发区在促进企业出口参与上的政策效力随时间呈倒U型趋势,并在实施后的第3年达到最大,开发区政策对企业出口参与的推动作用至少持续3至4年;基于倾向得分匹配(PSM)法的变换处理组检验结果证明开发区政策显著促进了企业的出口参与,且这种因果关系的安慰剂检验结果在不同的估计方法和估计步骤下均保持稳健。

【关键词】 开发区政策;集聚经济;出口参与;

【DOI】

【基金资助】 国家自然科学基金面上项目“生产全球化与传统产成品贸易对中美劳动力市场的影响”(71773020); 教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“降低贸易政策不确定性对我国出口及整体经济的影响”(17YJA790053);

Does development zone policy promote local firm’s export participation: based on the difference-in-differences method test

BIAN Zeyang1 QIANG Yongchang2 LI Zhiyuan2,3,4

(1.Business School, University of Shanghai for Science & Technology)
(2.School of Economics, Fudan University)
(3.Shanghai Institute of International Finance and Economics)
(4.Fudan-Pingan Macroeconomic Research Center)

【Abstract】This paper focuses on the promotion impact of the establishment of national-level development zone (economic and technological development zone and high-tech industrial development zone) on city-level firm’s export participation. In the theoretical part, we introduced endogenous thought of firm’s fixed export cost on the basis of Melitz (2003) model, deducing that agglomeration economies reduced fixed export cost and increased the probability of firm’s entering export market. Then, we used DID method to conduct the empirical test towards the above questions by referring to a balanced panel data of 204 prefecture-level cities in 2000–2014 after passing the quasi-experiment test and parallel trend test. The results show that the establishment of Nationallevel Development Zone significantly raises the city-level annual growth rate of the mass of exporters by 15.7%. Considering the timeliness of the policy, the National-level Development Zone has seized an inverted U-shape impact over time on prompting firm’s export participation which reaches the peak in the third year after the experiment, and this promotion effect can last for at least three to four years. The “Switching Treatment Group Test” based on PSM method proves that just the development zone policy has significantly prompted firm’s export participation, and the result of this causality “Placebo Test” is robust regardless of different estimation methods and procedures.

【Keywords】 development zone; agglomeration economy; export participation;

【DOI】

【Funds】 the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71773020); the Humanities and Social Sciences Planning Fund of the Ministry of Education (17YJA790053);

Download this article
    Footnote

    [1]. ① The difference between an economic development zone and a high-tech zone is the supervising department. The two has no fundamental difference in layout design, preferential policies and management systems. Therefore, there is no point in examining the two separately in terms of the effect on firms’ exports (Liu , 2018). [^Back]

    [2]. ① Specifically, Xianyang of Shaanxi Province established the Yangling Agricultural High-tech Industrial Demonstration Zone in 1997 and the Xianyang High-tech Industrial Development Zone in 2012, both of which are National National High-Tech Industrial Development Zone. However, the former is an agricultural high-tech zone and is not in manufacturing and export industries which are the subject of this paper. Therefore, Xianyang is deemed to obtain approval for a national high-tech zone in 2012. [^Back]

    [3]. ① During the selection of the control group cities, Sansha and Haidong, two prefecture-level cities established in 2012 and 2013, and Chaohu, a city removed from the prefecture-level divisions in 2011 are excluded, retaining the rest 89 prefecture-level cities with no national economic development zones or high-tech zones. [^Back]

    References

    [1] EATON J, KORTUM S, KRAMARZ F. Dissecting Trade: Firms, Industries, and Export Destinations. American Economic Review, 2004, 94(2): 150–154.

    [2] HUMMELSD, KLENOWPJ. The Variety and Quality of a Nation’s Exports. American Economic Review, 2005, 95(3): 704–723.

    [3] PHAMC, MARTINW. Extensive and Intensive Margin Growth and Developing Country Exports. World Bank, Washington, DC, 2007.

    [4] KANCSDA. Trade Growth in a Heterogeneous Firm Model: Evidence from South Eastern Europe. The World Economy, 2007, 30(7): 1139–1169.

    [5] BERNARD A B, JENSEN J B, REDDING S J, et al. The Margins of US Trade. American Economic Review, 2009, 99(2): 487–493.

    [6] MELITZ M J. The Impact of Trade on Intra-industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, 2003, 71(6): 1695–1725.

    [7] Chen, Z. & Xiong, R. Management World (管理世界), (8): 67–80 (2015).

    [8] Wu, M. & Huang, J. South China Journal of Economics (南方经济), (7): 87–102 (2012).

    [9] Zhang, G., Wang, Y. & Li, K. Journal of Finance and Economics (财经研究), (12): 49–60 (2016).

    [10] Wang, Y. & Zhang, G. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (7): 58–71 (2016).

    [11] DURANTON G, PUGA D. Chapter48-Micro-Foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies. Henderson J V, Thisse J. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Elsevier, 2004: 2063–2117.

    [12] ANDERSSON M, LOOF H. Agglomeration and Productivity: Evidence from Firm-Level Data. Annals of Regional Science, 2011, 46(3): 601–620.

    [13] COMBES P, DURANTON G, GOBILLON L, et al. The Productivity Advantages of Large Cities: Distinguishing Agglomeration from Firm Selection. Econometrica, 2012, 80(6): 2543–2594.

    [14] Yu, Z. & Yang, Y. The Journal of World Economy (世界经济), (10): 31–51 (2014).

    [15] Fan, J., Feng, M. & Li, F. The Journal of World Economy (世界经济), (5): 51–73 (2014).

    [16] CAINELLI G, Di MARIA E, GANAU R. An Explanation of Firms’ Internationalisation Modes, Blending Firm Heterogeneity and Spatial Agglomeration: Microevidence from Italy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2014, 46(4): 943–962.

    [17] Liu, J. Forum of World Economics & Politics (世界经济与政治论坛), (2): 45–67 (2018).

    [18] SHARMA S. Three Essays on the Economics of Agglomeration. Economics-Dissertations, 2001, 51.

    [19] CASSEY A J, SCHMEISER K N. The Agglomeration of Exporters by Destination. Annals of Regional Science, 2013, 51(2): 495–513.

    [20] KOENIG P. Agglomeration and the Export Decisions of French Firms. Journal of Urban Economics, 2009, 66(3): 186–195.

    [21] KOENIG P, MAYNERIS F, PONCET S. Local Export Spillovers in France. European Economic Review, 2010, 54(4): 622–641.

    [22] CHOQUETTE E, MEINEN P. Export Spillovers: Opening the Black Box. The World Economy, 2015, 38(12): 1912–1946.

    [23] Zheng, J., Gao, Y. & Hu, X. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (5): 33–46 (2008).

    [24] Fan, Z. Financial Minds (财经智库), (3): 42–64 (2018).

    [25] Zheng, X., Wang, H. & Zhao, Y. Management World (管理世界), (8): 34–44 (2011).

    [26] AUTOR D H. Outsourcing at Will: The Contribution of Unjust Dismissal Doctrine to the Growth of Employment Outsourcing. Journal of Labor Economics, 2003, 21(1): 1–42.

    [27] Liu, R. & Zhao, R. Management World (管理世界), (8): 30–38 (2015).

    [28] Liu, J. & Fan, Z. The Journal of World Economy (世界经济), (11):117–135 (2013).

This Article

ISSN:1002-4670

CN: 11-1692/F

Vol , No. 11, Pages 116-132

November 2019

Downloads:2

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • Introduction
  • 1 Literature review
  • 2 Theoretical model and mechanism analysis
  • 3 Research design
  • 4 Empirical analysis
  • 5 Conclusions and policy implications
  • Footnote

    References