Anti-corruption, marketisation and firm behaviours: evidence from firm innovation in China

Li Dang and Ruilong Yang

Economic and Political Studies, 2016, vol. 4, issue 1, 39-61

Abstract: China has launched an anti-corruption campaign since the Eighteenth CPC National Congress, which has exerted widespread influences on Chinese politics and economy. This paper examines the effect of the anti-corruption initiative on firm behaviours from the perspective of research and development (R&D) investments. It shows that pursuing political connections and improving innovation are two mutually exclusive alternatives for firm growth in China. The anti-corruption campaign raises the cost of seeking for political bond and strengthens the incentive for firm innovation. After anti-corruption policies and regulations were issued, R&D expenditure in politically connected firms increases significantly; the anti-corruption initiative has positive effects on firm innovation. Further research shows that the effects vary with different types of firms. For state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the anti-corruption initiative only increases the R&D investments of firms with senior executives who used to serve in the government; while for non-state-owned enterprises (non-SOEs), this campaign has all-around positive effects on their R&D investments. In the meantime, a heterogeneity at the provincial level is observed: R&D investments of firms with political connections increase more significantly in provinces with more intense anti-corruption efforts. Finally, marketisation also has a role to play. For regions with a more developed market economy, anti-corruption increases the innovation of firms with political connections; whereas in regions with a less developed market economy, this effect is insignificant. This paper provides evidence for the opinion that anti-corruption is favourable to economic growth in China. To solve the endogeneity problem, it uses data obtained from the anti-corruption policy experiment since the Eighteenth CPC National Congress and the difference-in-differences (DID) method to further test the hypotheses.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/20954816.2016.1152093 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:repsxx:v:4:y:2016:i:1:p:39-61

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/reps20

DOI: 10.1080/20954816.2016.1152093

Access Statistics for this article

Economic and Political Studies is currently edited by Qing He and Cunna Li

More articles in Economic and Political Studies from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().