This paper examines the spillover effect of environmental regulations on firms’ green technological innovation, from the perspective of supply chain relationships. Analyzing data from Chinese listed companies, we find that the average environmental regulatory pressure faced by the client firms of a supplier firm enhances the green patent applications filed by the supplier firm, indicating that environmental regulatory pressure from clients spills over to suppliers. When the industries of suppliers are more competitive or the proportion of their sales from the largest client is higher, suppliers feel more pressured to engage in green innovation, resulting in more green patent applications. Thus, via their negotiation power, client firms can prompt supplier firms to innovate to meet their demand for green technologies. Finally, we show that this effect is particularly pronounced when supplier firms are located in highly marketized regions, receive low R&D government subsidies, or have high ESG ratings.

This paper investigates the varying impact of government subsidies on corporate investment efficiency using micro-level data from Chinese listed firms. Through meticulous compilation of information on government subsidies revealed in financial statements, and the implementation of an innovative categorization methodology based on the nature and timing of funds (ex-ante versus ex-post), we shed light on the divergent effects of these subsidies. Our findings are as follows: (1) Government subsidies enhance corporate investment efficiency, yet their effects exhibit asymmetry by alleviating underinvestment while exacerbating overinvestment. (2) Functional subsidies exert a stronger influence on investment efficiency compared to selective subsidies. Specifically, functional subsidies prove more effective in addressing underinvestment, but also possess a higher likelihood of exacerbating overinvestment. (3) State ownership, firm size and dividend payments lead to heterogeneity in the effects of subsidies. (4) Corporate financial constraints serve as one of the mechanisms through which subsidies affect investment efficiency. This suggests that firms with easier access to financing may not effectively utilize subsidies, while those facing severe financial constraints are less prone to misusing them.

We estimate the financial and real effects of a subsidy program on imported capital goods recently implemented in China. We identify ffrms that have access to the subsidy program by combining data on catalogues of eligible products periodically released by the government and product-level import data. Our findings demonstrate that following the implementation of the program, eligible firms experience an increase in borrowing and gain access to loans at lower interest rates compared to non-eligible firms. This improved financial situation enables them to expand their fixed-asset investments, increase total output, and enhance their export performance. The expansion of production capacity also leads to improved investment efffciency and greater profitability. Further analysis reveals that the effects of the policy are particularly pronounced for non-state-owned enterprises and small firms in relatively competitive industries. This finding suggests that these firms face ex-ante financial constraints, and their marginal rate of return to capital is large.

This paper investigates the free cash flow productivity of SOEs compared with non-SOEs and examines its possible determinants. We find that SOEs have slightly weak free cash flow productivity but significantly stronger than non-SOEs. Similar performance exists among commercial class I and II SOEs and public-benefit SOEs. Further analyses suggest that firm size, age, sales growth, ownership concentration, government subsidies, and industry monopoly factors cannot explain this phenomenon. The common driver for all types of SOEs to generate stronger free cash flows than nonSOEs is their stronger expense control capability.

Research has argued that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should bear more social responsibility than other listed firms, because their own goals include maintaining social stability and promoting social welfare. In contrast with the privatization of SOEs observed in other countries, in China, some listed firms’ major shareholders have become SOEs in recent years. This transition offers a good opportunity to investigate the impact of ownership change on firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR). Using the propensity score matching difference-in-differences method, we document that the CSR performance of these firms does not improve when their ownership structure changes, and it can even worsen. Our results remain robust to a series of tests. Further investigating the underlying economic mechanism, we uncover those political connections, bank financing, and government subsidies play critical roles in determining the negative effect of ownership structure change on public firms, which is consistent with the soft budget constraint framework. In an additional analysis, we find that CSR performance is poor for manufacturing industry firms after ownership structure change. After calculating the frequency of keywords appearing in the annual reports of such firms, we find them to be satisfied with their new SOE background after ownership structure change. Our paper provides a possible explanation for the phenomenon of SOEs becoming major shareholder of listed firms.

This paper investigates the free cash flow productivity of SOEs compared with non-SOEs and examines its possible determinants. We find that SOEs have slightly weak free cash flow productivity but significantly stronger than non-SOEs. Similar performance exists among commercial class I and II SOEs and public-benefit SOEs. Further analyses suggest that firm size, age, sales growth, ownership concentration, government subsidies, and industry monopoly factors cannot explain this phenomenon. The common driver for all types of SOEs to generate stronger free cash flows than non-SOEs is their stronger expense control capability.

We investigate whether and how political connections penetrate through headquarter-subsidiary relationships. Our results show that even though the headquarters of politically connected listed firms pay comparable land prices as other firms, their subsidiaries pay 12.1-13.2% less. The price discount, driven by corruption rather than government subsidies, is exacerbated when the land is sold through informationally opaque supply methods and when land is for commercial or residential use. The anti-corruption campaign has successfully mitigated such price distortions. Our findings also show that better legal protection and private sector development are crucial for fair markets.

This study develops an intertemporal model to investigate the causal relationship between government subsidies and employment and employs firm-level panel data to procure an estimation of the elasticities of government subsidies concerning employment, which is approximately 0.7 percent. To address endogeneity issues, we construct a novel Bartik shift-share instrumental variable for government subsidies. In heterogeneity analysis, our study discloses that government subsidies create a plethora of jobs, most predominately for individuals with advanced degrees, such as masters or doctorate. Additionally, our article identifies the top five industries that are most influenced by the effects of government subsidies.

Using the data of privately-owned firms in China’s transition economy, we examine the effects of soft budget constraint on the expropriation of minority shareholders. We find that, compared to small firms, large firms have higher bank loans and are more likely to get government subsidies. However, large firms show higher divergence between cash flow and control rights, more fund occupation by controlling shareholders, and lower market valuation. Moreover these differences between large and small firms become particularly pronounced when the firms operate in the provinces with poorer fiscal conditions. These findings suggest that soft budget constraint can mitigate the expropriation costs of controlling shareholders, and subsequently deteriorates the expropriation of minority shareholders.