Do Chinese foreign investment enterprises have higher markup: empirical evidence from manufacturing enterprises
(2.Nankai Institute of International Economics)
(3.Collaborative Innovation Center for China Economy)
【Abstract】Although lots of research have confirmed the self-selection effect in the foreign investment market with the firm productivity, they all ignored the importance of product pricing. Therefore, based on the enterprises’ markup ratio, this article combines production efficiency and product pricing ability into a unified analysis index to provide a comprehensive test about the “self-selection effect” of Chinese foreign investment market, and further investigates its productivity advantages and product pricing advantage. We find that foreign investment enterprises always have higher markups than non-foreign investment enterprises and the higher markup corresponding to larger investment scale. In addition to the productivity efficiency, further study finds that product pricing also plays an important role in the decision of foreign investment.
【Keywords】 firm heterogeneity; foreign investment; cost markup ratio;
. ① Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China: 2014 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment, China Statistical Press, September 2015 edition. [^Back]
. ② There is a serious endogeneity problem in estimating the regression of Model (6) directly. Therefore, De-Loecker and Warzynski (2012) mainly used the nonparametric estimation method to calculate the input-output coefficient of each factor. [^Back]
. ③ In the period of 2005–2013, the proportion of state-owned enterprises in China’s foreign investment was 81.8%, 81%, 71%, 69.6%, 69.2%, 66.2%, 62.7%, 59.8% and 55.2% respectively. Statistical Bulletin on China’s Foreign Direct Investment. [^Back]
. ④ Based on the name of enterprises, we reached 114 matched companies. For the data that no enterprise name matches, we used the enterprise zip code, legal person name and date of business set up to match, with a result of 130 enterprises in total. [^Back]
. ⑤ By controlling the productivity of enterprises in the regression model, De Loecker and Warzynski (2012) indirectly identify the impact of enterprise product prices. The implied premise is that the marginal cost of production depends entirely on corporate productivity. However, the productivity of enterprises will also affect the product price of enterprises; therefore, after controlling enterprise productivity, if the regression results are still significantly positive, it indicates China’s foreign investment enterprises have a higher product pricing advantage. [^Back]
Ge, S. & Luo, W. Management World (管理世界) (6): 28–42(2013).
Liao, G. & Shen, H. China Industrial Economy (中国工业经济), (6): 96–108 (2014)
Sheng, D. & Wang, Y. Management World (管理世界), (5): 8–23 (2012).
Tian, W. & Yu, M. Economics (Quarterly) (经济学(季刊)), (2): 383–408 (2012).
Wang, D., Wang, M. & Chen, L. Economic Research (经济研究), (4): 41–49 (2004).
Zhu, Q & Zhang, T. Finance and Trade Economics (财贸经济), (12): 103–117(2015).
Brandt, Loren, Johannes Van Biesebroeck and Yifan Zhang, (2012) “Creative Accounting or Creative De struction? Firm-Level Productivity Growth in Chinese Manufacturing,” Journal of Development Economics 97(2), 339–351.
Bernard, A. B., Eaton, J., Jensen, J. B., and Kortum, S., (2003) “Plants and Productivity in Internationa Trade,” American Economic Review 93(4), 1268–1290.
Cai, Hongbin, Qiao Liu, (2009) “Competition and Corporate Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Chinese Indus trial Firms,” Economic Journal 119 (537), 764–795.
Damijan, Joze P., Saso Polanec, and Janez Prasnikar, (2007) “Outward FDI and Productivity: Micro-evidence from Slovenia,” World Economy 30(1), 135–155.
De Loecker Jan,(2007) “Do Exports Generate Higher Productivity,” Journal of International Economics 73(1),69–98.
De Loecker, Jan and Warzynski F., (2012) “Markups and Firm-Level Export Status,” American Economic Review 102(6), 2437–2471.
Domowitz, Ian, R. Glenn Hubbard, and Bruce C. Petersen., (1986) “Business Cycles and the Relationship between Concentration and Price-cost Margins,” RAND Journal of Economics 17(1), 1–17.
Eaton, Jonathan, Samuel Kortum, and Francis Kramarz., (2004) “Dissecting Trade: Firms, Industries, and Export Destinations,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 94(2), 150–154.
Feenstra, Robert C., Zhiyuan Li and Yu Miaojie, (2014) “Export and Credit Constraints under Incomplete Information: Theory and Empirical Investigation from China,” Review of Economics and Statistics 96(4), 729–744.
Head, Keith, and John Ries., (2003) “Heterogeneity and the FDI Versus Export Decision of Japanese Manu facturers,” Journal of the Japanese and international economies 17(4), 448–467.
Helpman E, Melitz M and Yeaple S., (2004) “Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms,” American Economic Review 94(1), 300–316.
Levinsohn, J. and Petrin, A., (2003) “Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables,” Review of Economic Studies 70(2), 317–342.
Lu, Jiangyong, Yi Lu, and Zhigang Tao., (2010) “Exporting Behavior of Foreign Affiliates: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of International Economics 81(2), 197–205.
Melitz, Marc J., (2003) “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity,” Econometrica 71(6), 1695–1725.
Melitz, Marc J., and Gianmarco IP Ottaviano., (2008) “Market Size, Trade, and Productivity,” Review of Economic Studies 75(1), 295–316.
Olley, S. and Pakes A., (1996) “The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Industry,” Econometrica 64(6), 1263–1298.
Roeger, Werner., (2009) “Can Imperfect Competition Explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for US Manufacturing,” Journal of Political Economy 103(2), 316–30.
Van Biesebroeck J., (2005) “Exporting Raises Productivity in Sub-Saharan African Manufacturing Firms,” Journal of International Economics 67(2), 373–391.
Yeaple, Stephen Ross., (2009) “Firm Heterogeneity and the Structure of US Multinational Activity,” Journal of International Economics 78(2), 206–215.