Government innovation leadership is an important booster for the breakthrough of China’s high-tech industry under the dual resistance of increasing external containment pressure and increasing difficulty of internal scientific and technological research, as well as coordinating development and security.

This paper analyzes the mechanism of government innovation leadership on the TFP growth rate of high-tech industry, its influence path and channel heterogeneity. It is found that government innovation leadership can promote the TFP growth rate of high-tech industry through two mechanisms: technology effect and signaling effect. Considering the channel heterogeneity, it is found that the positive effect mainly originates from the channel of R&D institutions. Further, from the path test of the impact of government innovation leadership on innovation in high-tech industry, it is found that the main reason for the overall insignificant effect of the channel of universities and enterprises is the mismatch of inputs and outputs rather than the lack of positive impact on innovation. The path test also finds that, firstly, in terms of technology effect, the R&D institution channel focuses on finished technology transfer, the university channel focuses on the synergistic effect through scientific knowledge output and industrial independent innovation, and the enterprise channel contributes to the increase of TFP growth rate through direct technology output and synergistic effect with industrial independent innovation and collaborative innovation. Secondly, at this stage, independent innovation and collaborative innovation in high-tech industry have a limited effect on the TFP growth rate. Government innovation leadership helps industry independent innovation. But there is a mismatch in technology direction between government innovation leadership and collaborative innovation the industry actively seeks externally. So the integration of industry-university-research-application under the national strategy needs effective guidance from the government.

The contributions of paper are that: Firstly, in terms of research perspective, it examines the government’s role from a more active innovation leadership perspective. Specifically, it explores how science and technology innovation in the new era relies on national top-level design to build a collaborative innovation network through R&D investment layout and funding support and promote the implementation of national science and technology strategy, which in turn leads to an increase in the TFP growth rate and the breakthrough of high-tech industry. Secondly, it analyzes the mechanism of government innovation leadership on the TFP growth rate of high-tech industry, the influence path and channel heterogeneity, and clarifies the effectiveness and blockage points of the combination of effective market and active government in the innovation practice of high-tech industry, so as to provide experience references for the precise policy-making of government innovation leadership practice and build a new system concentrating nationwide effort and resources on key national undertakings.