Abstract

This paper explores the effect of the Double‐pillar regulation on promoting enterprise innovation and its influencing mechanism. Based on the panel data of A‐share listed nonfinancial enterprises in China from 2010 to 2019, this paper empirically examines the driving effect of the Double‐pillar regulation on enterprise innovation and its influencing mechanism. The empirical results demonstrate that the Double‐pillar regulation can promote enterprise innovation, and there is significant regional heterogeneity. The Double‐pillar regulation has a stronger driving effect on the innovation of state‐owned enterprises. The Double‐pillar regulation can effectively reduce the financialization of enterprises, thus boosting enterprise innovation. The degree of financing constraint and the improvement of enterprise risk‐taking level will enhance the driving effect of the double‐pillar regulation on enterprise innovation. The research of this paper promotes the understanding of the effect, mechanism, and regional differences of enterprise innovation under the Double‐pillar regulation. Meanwhile, it also examines the necessity of building the Double‐pillar regulation framework.

Highlights

  • After the global financial crisis triggered by the US subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, the attention of financial regulators has gradually shifted from a microprudential framework to a macroprudential framework. is crisis shows that maintaining the soundness of one or more financial institutions is not a sufficient condition to ensure financial stability

  • The regression coefficient of monetary policy is significantly positive and the regression coefficient of macroprudential policy is significantly negative. is indicates that loose monetary policy is helpful for enterprises to carry out innovation activities, while tight macroprudential policy will inhibit enterprises from carrying out innovation. e possible reason is that loose monetary policy can prompt banks to lower the loan threshold and enable enterprises to obtain more external funds, increasing their investment in innovation

  • MMPI in Column (3) is significantly positive, indicating that the financialization of enterprises acts as a partial intermediary. is means the double-pillar regulation can effectively reduce the financialization of enterprises and drive enterprise innovation, so Hypothesis 4 is verified

Read more

Summary

Introduction

After the global financial crisis triggered by the US subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, the attention of financial regulators has gradually shifted from a microprudential framework to a macroprudential framework. is crisis shows that maintaining the soundness of one or more financial institutions is not a sufficient condition to ensure financial stability. E report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China mentions that the Double-pillar regulation framework of monetary policy and macroprudential policy should be strengthened, and the bottom line of systemic financial risks should be firmly safeguarded, fully demonstrating that the Double-pillar regulation policy is of vital significance for maintaining financial stability. Some scholars have theoretically analyzed the Double-pillar regulation framework and expounded the internal logic and the effect of the double-pillar regulation [11, 12] On this basis, some scholars have established the DSGE model to prove that the double-pillar regulation can effectively reduce systemic risks and economic leverage ratio and maintain macroeconomic stability [13–17]. Its practical significance lies in investigating whether the Double-pillar regulatory framework can effectively promote enterprise innovation and economic growth while maintaining financial stability. Erefore, the Double-pillar regulation has a more significant, driving effect on the innovation of state-owned enterprises In this context, this paper puts forward the following hypotheses. H3: compared with non-state-owned enterprises, the Double-pillar regulation has a stronger driving effect on the innovation of state-owned enterprises

Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses
Baseline
Mediating Effect Model
Moderating Effect Model
Description of Variables and Data
Proxy Variable of Monetary
Financialization of
Data Sources and Descriptive
Regression Results of the Baseline Model
Heterogeneity Test
Mechanism Test
Robustness Test
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.