亏损后转年限延长增加了企业创新投入吗

Does Extending the Loss Carryforward Period Increase Firms'Investment in Innovation

亏损向后结转作为缓解创新领域市场失灵的重要税收政策,对企业投资和风险承担的影响仍未形成一致结论。本文利用高新技术企业亏损向后结转年限延长(财税[2018]76号)这一外生冲击,以2015-2020年中国A股上市公司为样本,检验亏损向后结转年限延长对企业创新投入的影响。研究结果表明,亏损向后结转年限延长对企业创新投入有显著的促进作用,有效缓解了市场失灵引发的企业创新投入低下。进一步研究发现,这一促进作用只在成长期和成熟期的企业中显著,且不同生命周期阶段企业在融资约束和经营前景上的差异是影响该政策激励效果的重要因素。为了探究亏损向后结转政策放宽在消弭市场失灵的同时是否会引发政府失灵,本文挖掘亏损向后结转年限延长与僵尸企业之间的联系,发现结转年限延长对创新的促进效应只在非僵尸企业组别中显著;此外,亏损向后结转政策实施后企业僵尸化的概率有所增加,且这一问题在淘汰期的企业中最为严重,衰退期次之。本文实证检验了亏损向后结转政策在激励企业创新方面的政策效果,对该政策的进一步完善具有参考价值。

At this pivotal moment in China's journey toward building a modern socialist nation,the role of enterprises in driving high-quality development has become increasingly important.There is growing attention from policymakers,researchers,and the public on how much these companies prioritize and invest in research and development(R&D).However,the nature of innovation often leads to market failure,making it challenging for companies to allocate resources effectively through the market alone.Specifically,on the one hand,innovation exhibits significant positive externalities;the knowledge and technological spillover effects generated during the innovation process benefit other enterprises and society as a whole.At the same time,the outcomes of innovation are characterized by non-exclusivity and non-rivalry in usage and benefits,preventing innovating enterprises from capturing the full returns of their innovations.On the other hand,innovation is characterized by high costs,long cycles,high failure rates,and unpredictable returns,making the costs of engaging in innovation prohibitively high for enterprises.The mismatch between returns and costs discourages companies from investing in R&D at levels that would be optimal for society.To address this underinvestment caused by market failures,governments worldwide have implemented fiscal policies to encourage greater innovation efforts by businesses.One such measure is the loss carryforward policy.In line with the innovation-driven development strategy,China's Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation issued Notice[2018]No.76 on July 11,2018.This policy extends the maximum period for carrying forward losses from 5 years to 10 years for high-tech enterprises and technology-based small and medium-sized enterprises,effective from January 1,2018.This change aims to better support the growth of innovative companies.Loss carryforward is a fiscal tool used by governments to address market failures,but if mismanaged,it can lead to government failures such as resource misallocation.The challenge with this policy is finding a balance between allowing struggling companies to continue operating and encouraging firms to take on the risks necessary for innovation.If the policy is too lenient,it can keep unproductive,loss-making companies afloat,consuming valuable market resources and potentially creating zombie enterprises.On the other hand,if the policy is too strict,it may discourage promising companies from taking necessary risks.Effectively distinguishing between different types of companies is key to solving this issue.According to the corporate life cycle theory,companies at different stages of their life cycle vary in size,profitability,growth potential,and strategic objectives.These differences mean that companies have different innovation needs and face varying levels of financial constraints at different times.By tailoring policies based on a company's life cycle stage,resources can be better allocated to dynamic and promising companies.This approach not only addresses market inefficiencies in innovation but also reduces the risk of government missteps due to improper intervention.The main research content of this paper includes five aspects:descriptive statistics,benchmark regression results,robustness checks,mechanism analysis,and extensibility analysis.Specifically,this paper examines the impact of extending the loss carryforward period for high-tech enterprises,as outlined in Notice[2018]No.76,on corporate innovation using a quasi-natural experiment.The study analyzes data from Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed companies between 2015 and 2020,employing a panel difference-in-differences model.The findings indicate that,after accounting for firm-specific characteristics,year,and industry fixed effects,the extension significantly boosts corporate innovation investment.These results remain consistent after various robustness checks.The paper also considers how a firm's life cycle stage influences these findings.It shows that the positive effect of the extended loss carryforward period on innovation is significant only for firms in their growth and maturity stages.The differences in financing constraints and business prospects across life cycle stages are crucial factors affecting the policy's effectiveness in encouraging innovation.Finally,the study explores the connection between the relaxed loss carryforward policy and the rise of zombie firms.It finds that the positive impact on innovation is significant only among non-zombie firms.Moreover,the implementation of Notice[2018]No.76 is associated with an increased likelihood of firms becoming zombie entities,with this issue being most severe among firms in the decline stage,followed by those in the recession stage.Against the backdrop of the growing importance of innovation,this paper provides empirical evidence that extending the loss carryforward period can boost firms'investment in innovation.However,policies should be tailored to the firm's life cycle stage,with careful consideration given to the potential rise in zombie firms.This paper has significant theoretical value and practical significance,and its potential marginal innovations are reflected in the following three aspects:First,it offers a novel perspective by being the first to examine the economic impact of extending the loss carryforward period through the lens of corporate innovation.The research empirically tests the innovation effects of the loss carryforward policy,as suggested by Ji(2020).More critically,it addresses the broader issue of market failure and government failure by exploring how this policy can mitigate market inefficiencies in innovation while also highlighting the risks of resource misallocation when firm differences are overlooked.This is the first study to assess the potential negative impacts of the loss carryforward policy.Second,this research incorporates corporate life cycle theory into the analysis of how loss carryforward affects investment.It examines how differences in innovation incentives,financing constraints,and business prospects across various life cycle stages influence the effectiveness of the policy.This approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the debate on whether the loss carryforward policy effectively incentivizes corporate investment.Third,from a methodological perspective,the study leverages the quasi-natural experiment provided by the implementation of Notice[2018]No.76 and uses a difference-in-differences model to assess the impact of the extended loss carryforward period on corporate innovation investment.Given the challenges in accurately identifying the effects of the loss carryforward policy,such as endogeneity and omitted variables,this study addresses these issues by establishing a causal link between the policy and corporate innovation.The analysis controls for time and industry fixed effects,uses firm-level clustered robust standard errors,and further validates the findings through a series of robustness tests,including propensity score matching combined with DID.