With the increasing export scale, the distribution of Chinese export industries has changed significantly. The overall export scale expansion is mainly led by the middle and downstream industries, while the upstream industry lacks obvious export advantages. At the same time, China’s overall market structure has also undergone significant changes, showing an asymmetric state of " administrative monopoly in the upstream industry, market competition in the downstream industry”. Given the importance of input-output linkages between industries, China’s current market structure has motivated this study, namely, as market competition intensifies in the middle and downstream industries, does maintaining the administrative control in the upstream industry hinder the Chinese firm export? Based on the data of micro-enterprises from 1998 to 2013, this paper first estimates the production location of each industry from the perspective of vertical production supply chain, and defines the upstream administrative control based on the proportion of state-owned enterprises in the industry and the evolution trend. On this basis, based on the input-output relationship between industries, we measure the degree of the upstream administrative control that each industry faces, and then identify the impact on China’s firm export. In addition, this paper also tests the differences of its effects based on the enterprise ownership, trade pattern, industry competition degree and regional development. This paper finds that: Firstly, the upstream administrative control with state-owned enterprises does not include every industry, mainly referring to the capital-intensive industries such as coal mining washing and dressing industry, oil and natural gas mining industry, and the production and supply of electric power and heat. Secondly, with the continuous deepening of China’s market-oriented reform, the degree of the upstream administrative control decreased significantly from 1998 to 2007, but it was reversed and strengthened year by year from 2007 to 2013. Finally, since 2007, the enhancement of the upstream administrative control has significantly inhibited the export of Chinese manufacturing enterprises, and this negative impact is mainly reflected in private enterprises, ordinary trading firms, highly competitive industries and eastern regions. This paper has important policy implications: Firstly, we should lower the market entry regulation of the upstream regulated industry and the loan discrimination against non-state-owned enterprises, so as to enhance the market competition of the upstream administrative control industry. Secondly, the innovation incentive mechanism of the upstream regulated industry should be established to improve the technical content and product quality of upstream intermediate inputs, and the growth effect of export trade should be continued to exert. This paper contributes to the existing research mainly from two aspects: Firstly, the perspective based on the vertical production supply chain defines the scope of the administrative control in the upstream industry, and the indirect effects of input-output relation between industries are considered, which improves the measuring errors of the issue. Secondly, the evolution of the upstream administrative control degree is described by the Chinese industrial enterprise database from 1998 to 2013, which can evaluate the policy effects more accurately and make up for the deficiencies of the existing research.
Regulation in the Upstream Sector and Chinese Firm Export：The Position in the Vertical Production Supply Chain Matters
Journal of Finance and Economics Vol. 45, Issue 04, pp. 140 - 152 (2019) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.jfe.2019.04.011
Li S J, Mao Q L. Upstream monopoly and domestic value added of manufacturing firms’ exports: Empirical evidence from China[J]. China Industrial Economics, 2017, (3): 101-119. (In Chinese)
Liu R M, Shi L. Upstream market monopoly, asymmetric competition and social welfare: On the nature of the large and medium SOEs’ profit[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2011, (12): 86-96. (In Chinese)
Lv Y L, Lv Y. Upstream monopoly and comparative advantage of manufacturing: Evidence from global value chains[J]. Finance & Trade Economics, 2017, (8): 98-111. (In Chinese)
Wang Y J, Liu C L. How does SOEs’ monopoly in the upstream sector hinder economic growth？Micro-evidence from China's manufacturing sector[J]. Management World, 2016, (6): 10-21. (In Chinese)
Wang Y J, Shi B Z. Upstream monopoly and quality upgrading of Chinese firms[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2014, (4): 116-129. (In Chinese)
Acemoglu D, Akcigit U, Kerr W. Networks and the macroeconomy: An empirical exploration[J]. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2015, 30(1): 273-335.
Antràs P, Chor D, Fally T, et al. Measuring the upstreamness of production and trade flows[J]. The American Economic Review, 2012, 102(3): 412-416. DOI:10.1257/aer.102.3.412
Bas M. Input-trade liberalization and firm export decisions: Evidence from Argentina[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2012, 97(2): 481-493. DOI:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.05.010
Bas M, Causa O. Trade and product market policies in upstream sectors and productivity in downstream sectors: Firm-level evidence from China[J]. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2013, 41(3): 843-862. DOI:10.1016/j.jce.2013.01.010
Bas M. Does services liberalization affect manufacturing firms’ export performance? Evidence from India[J]. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2014, 42(3): 569-589. DOI:10.1016/j.jce.2013.06.005
Beverelli C, Fiorini M, Hoekman B. Services trade policy and manufacturing productivity: The role of institutions[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2017, 104: 166-182. DOI:10.1016/j.jinteco.2016.11.001
Blonigen B A. Industrial policy and downstream export performance[J]. Economic Journal, 2016, 126(595): 1635-1659. DOI:10.1111/ecoj.2016.126.issue-595
Bourlès R, Cette G, Lopez J, et al. Do product market regulations in upstream sectors curb productivity growth? Panel data evidence for OECD countries[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2013, 95(5): 1750-1768. DOI:10.1162/REST_a_00338
Chevassus-Lozza E, Gaigné C, Le Mener L. Does input trade liberalization boost downstream firms’ exports? Theory and firm-level evidence[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2013, 90(2): 391-402. DOI:10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.02.004
Dai M, Maitra M, Yu M J. Unexceptional exporter performance in China? The role of processing trade[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2016, 121: 177-189. DOI:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.03.007
Goldberg P K, Khandelwal A K, Pavcnik N, et al. Imported intermediate inputs and domestic product growth: Evidence from India[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2010, 125(4): 1727-1767. DOI:10.1162/qjec.2010.125.4.1727
Hering L, Poncet S. Market access and individual wages: Evidence from China[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2010, 92(1): 145-159. DOI:10.1162/rest.2009.11418
Hsieh C T, Song Z. Grasp the large, let go of the small: The transformation of the state sector in China[R]. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2015.
Li X, Liu X W, Wang Y. A model of China’s state capitalism[R]. USA: Society for Economic Dynamics, 2015.
Lu Y, Yu L H. Trade liberalization and markup dispersion: Evidence from China’s WTO accession[J]. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2015, 7(4): 221-253. DOI:10.1257/app.20140350
Cite this article
Liu Canlei, Wang Yongjin. Regulation in the Upstream Sector and Chinese Firm Export：The Position in the Vertical Production Supply Chain Matters[J]. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2019, 45(4): 140-152.