母国政治关联影响中国企业OFDI吗？

摘要利用2008—2017年上市公司数据,基于母国和东道国效应视角探究母国政治关联对中国企业OFDI的影响机制,考察所有权和政府与市场关系发挥的(联合)调节作用。实证结果表明:(1)母国政治关联与企业OFDI负向关联;(2)相比民企,母国政治关联对国企OFDI更易产生负面影响;(3)伴随市场在资源配置中积极作用的提升,母国政治关联对企业OFDI的影响作用由“激励”转为“制约”;(4)联合调节效应方面:所有权对母国政治关联与企业OFDI的调节作用依赖于政府与市场关系,即政府与市场关系调节作用下母国政治关联对国企、民企OFDI影响差异性缩小;(5)Mlogit模型结果显示无论是否考虑(联合)调节效应,以发展中国家为东道国时母国效应突出,以发达国家为东道国时东道国效应突出;(6)寻租成本发挥中介作用。研究结论对中资企业如何在母国政治关联与OFDI两者间取得权衡具有重要启示及借鉴价值。

	Service

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	Email Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	刘娟
	曹杰

关键词：政治关联对外直接投资市场化进程联合调节效应 Tobit模型

Abstract： Based on the data of listed companies from 2008 to 2017, this paper systematically explores the influence mechanism of home-country political connections on OFDI of Chinese enterprises from the perspective of home-country and host-country effects, and examines the joint regulatory role of ownership and the relationship between government and market. There are following empirical results: (1) The home-country political connection is significantly negatively correlated with OFDI of enterprises. (2) Compared with private enterprises, the home-country political connection has more negative impact on state-owned enterprises’ OFDI. (3) With the improvement of the positive role of the market in the allocation of resources, the impact of home-country political connection on the enterprises’ OFDI changes from “incentive” to “restriction”. (4) The joint moderation effects show that the moderation effects of the ownership on home-country political connection and enterprises’ OFDI depends on the relationship between the government and the market. Under the regulation of the relationship between the government and the market, the difference of the impact of home-country political relations on the OFDI of state-owned enterprises and private enterprises is reduced. (5) The results of Mlogit model show that the home country effect is prominent when the developing country is the host country, and the host country effect is also prominent when the developed country is the home-country, regardless of whether or not the regulation effect is considered. (6) Rent-seeking cost plays an intermediary role between home-country political connections and corporate OFDI. The conclusion has much reference value for Chinese enterprises to make a balance between home-country political connection and OFDI.

Keywords： Political Connection OFDI Marketization Joint Moderation Effect Tobit Model

收稿日期 2020-08-15; 接受日期 ;

基金资助:国家自然科学基金青年项目(71702121);教育部人文社科青年基金项目(18YJC790001);天津市哲学社会科学规划项目(TJYYWT16-015)

作者简介: 刘娟(1979—),女,天津人,博士,副教授,主要从事国际商务研究;曹杰(1983—),男,天津人,博士,讲师,主要从事国际贸易与投资研究。

引用本文:

刘娟, 曹杰.母国政治关联影响中国企业OFDI吗？[J]. 经济经纬, 2021,4: 53-62

LIU Juan, CAO Jie.Does the Home-country Political Connection Affect Chinese Enterprises’ OFDI?[J] Economic Survey, 2021,V38(4): 53-62

链接本文:

http://www.jjjw.org.cn/CN/ 或 http://www.jjjw.org.cn/CN/Y2021/V38/I4/53

邓新明,熊会兵,李剑峰,等. 2014. 政治关联、国际化战略与企业价值:来自中国民营上市公司面板数据的分析[J]. 南开管理评论(1):26-43.
封思贤,蒋伏心,肖泽磊. 2012. 企业政治关联行为研究述评与展望[J]. 外国经济与管理(12):62-70.
郭周明,张晓磊. 2014. 中国对发展中国家OFDI政策的基本特征与理性透视[J]. 亚太经济(5):95-100.
胡大猛,钟昌标,黄远浙. 2020. 政企关联真的有利于企业对外投资吗:基于社会资本和人力资本视角的解释[J]. 国际贸易问题(6):56-74.
姜慧,孙玉琴. 2018. 中国OFDI、东道国基础设施建设与双边经济增长:基于“一带一路”东道国制度的视角[J]. 经济理论与经济管理(12):86-99.
李健,陈传明,孙俊华. 2012. 企业家政治关联、竞争战略选择与企业价值:基于上市公司动态面板数据的实证研究[J]. 南开管理评论(6):149-159.
李维安,王鹏程,徐业坤. 2015. 慈善捐赠、政治关联与债务融资:民营企业与政府的资源交换行为[J].南开管理评论(1):4-14.
廖佳,潘春阳,雷平.2020.投资便利化及其效应:来自中国对“一带一路”国家OFDI的证据[J].贵州财经大学学报(2):22-27.
齐晓飞,关鑫,崔新健. 2015. 政府参与和中国企业OFDI行为:基于文献研究的视角[J]. 财经问题研究(5):119-125.
王文珍,李平. 2018. 要素市场扭曲对企业对外直接投资的影响[J]. 世界经济研究(9):79-94,138.
王小鲁,樊纲,胡李鹏. 2019. 中国分省份市场化指数报告[M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
王永进,盛丹. 2012. 政治关联与企业的契约实施环境[J]. 经济学(季刊)(4):1193-1218.
温忠麟,叶宝娟.2014. 中介效应分析: 方法和模型发展[J].心理科学进展(5) :731-745.
肖光恩.2019.当前中美贸易摩擦的现实难题和解决路径[J].安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)(6):142-150.
杨勃,刘娟. 2020. 来源国劣势:新兴经济体跨国企业国际化“出身劣势”:文献评述与整合框架构建[J]. 外国经济与管理(1):113-125.
杨洋,魏江,罗来军. 2015. 谁在利用政府补贴进行创新?——所有制和要素市场扭曲的联合调节效应[J]. 管理世界(1):83-94.
张海波. 2017. 对外直接投资能促进我国制造业跨国企业生产率提升吗:基于投资广度和投资深度的实证检验[J].国际贸易问题(4):95-106
赵玉奇,柯善咨. 2016. 市场分割、出口企业的生产率准入门槛与“中国制造”[J]. 世界经济(9):74-98.
周经,王馗. 2019. 国内市场分割影响了中国对外直接投资吗:基于企业微观数据的实证研究[J].国际贸易问题(11):61-76.
BERMAN S L, WICKS A C, KOTHA S, et al. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance[J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5):488-506.
CASTROGIOVANNI G J. 1991. Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment[J]. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3):542-565.
CHEN C, TIAN W, YU M. 2019. Outward FDI and domestic input distortions: Evidence from Chinese firms[J]. The Economic Journal, 129(11):3025-3057.
CLAESSENS S, FEIGEN E, LAEVEN L. 2008. Political connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign contributions[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3):554-580.
FACCIO M. 2006. Politically connected firms[J]. American Economic Review, 96(1):369-386.
FISMAN R. 2001. Estimating the value of political connections[J]. American Economic Review, 91(4):1095-1102.
KRUEGER A O. 1974. The political economy of the rent-seeking society[J]. American Economic Review, 64(3):291-303.
LEUZ C, OBERHOLZER-GEE F. 2006. Political relationships, global financing and corporate transparency: Evidence from Indonesia[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 81(2):411-439.
RUGMAN A M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets[M]. New York: Columbia University Press.
ZHANG J, MARQUIS C, QIAO K. 2016. Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms[J]. Organization Science, 27(5):1307-1324.