金融地理结构如何影响企业生产率?——兼论金融供给侧结构性改革

Does the Geographic Structure of a Financial System Affect Enterprise Productivity? Discussion of the Financial Supply-side Structural Reform

地理距离对金融交易的影响主要分为两类:一是地理距离抬升交易成本;二是信息不对称阻碍风险控制。在此基础上,本文讨论了金融机构与实体企业协同选址的微观机理及其对实体经济部门生产率增长的宏观影响。基于中国制造业企业微观数据和城市金融发展数据,本文区分金融中心和地方金融检验了金融地理结构对企业生产率增长的影响。研究发现,地方金融发展对当地企业的生产率增长具有促进作用,区域金融中心建设对所在城市及其周边邻近城市企业的生产率增长具有积极影响。不过,金融地理结构影响企业生产率的方向和程度取决于企业的个体特征,如企业的规模、年龄和所有制形式。研究还发现,降低融资成本和促进技术创新是金融地理结构影响企业生产率的传导渠道。本文结论有助于理解转型国家金融地理结构与实体经济发展的关系,能够为推动当前金融供给侧结构性改革提供新见解。

There is a mismatch between the geographic structure of finance supply and the development demands of the real economy. Although the literature considers the effects of a financial system on the real economy from the perspective of financial function （Merton, 1995） , research on the relationship between the geographic structure of a financial system and the real economy is inadequate, with limited literature focusing on countries in transition. Geographic position affects the external fund availability of enterprises （ Klagge ＆ Martin, 2005 ; Agarwa ＆ Hauswald, 2010） and thus leads to the difference in enterprises＇ productivity （ Butler ＆ Cornaggia, 2011 ）. The effect of geographic distance on financial transactions is divided into two categories： one that suggests that distance upraises transaction cost, and one that proposes that information asymmetry hinders risk control. As a result, financial institutions and manufacturing enterprises are inclined to co-locate. The clustering of a large amount of financial institutions helps to promote the productivity growth of both local enterprises and enterprises in neighboring cities. The continuous evolution of financial clustering results indifferent-level financial centers that are formed in the same geographic space. In the context of China＇s transitional economy system, the spillover effect of financial centers also reflects evident administrative level characteristics and administrative geographic boundaries. As the financial center of a province, the provincial capital is not only capable of improving its own financial supply, but is also capable of ameliorating the fund availability of other cities in the province. Thus, the centralization and decentralization of financial geographic structures-in particular, the position of financial centers and local finance in the national financial system-affects the productivity growth of enterprises. Using the matched data of the Chinese Industry Enterprises Database and Urban Financial Development Data, this study＇s findings show the following. First, local financial development can promote the productivity growth of local enterprises. Additionally, the construction of regional financial centers has a promoting effect on the productivity growth of enterprises in both the city center and neighboring cities. Second, local financial development has a positive effect on the productivity growth of small and large enterprises and start-ups, while the construction of financial centers has a promoting effect on large enterprises and start-ups of a certain age in surrounding cities. Local financial development has a limited effect on the productivity growth of local state-owned enterprises （SOEs）. It even has a hindering effect on the productivity growth of undersized SOEs; however, it has a promotion effect on the productivity growth of non-SOEs. Moreover, the construction of financial centers has a positive effect on the productivity growth of SOEs of different scales in surrounding cities, but has only a promoting effect on the productivity growth of large-sized non-SOEs. Third, the optimization of a financial geographic structure helps enterprises to reduce financing costs and carry out innovation activities. The conclusions have implications for financial supply-side structural reform policy, which should promote the optimization of financial geographic structures. On the one hand, increasing and improving local financial supply are important ways to solve the financing difficulty of medium, small, and micro-sized enterprises; start-ups; and private enterprises by loosening the access control of the financial market. On the other hand, according to the national economic geographic structure, the central government can plan the spatial distribution and scale level of financial centers and break the administrative geographic border of financial function spillovers by promoting financial marketization reform and integration processes.