Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byHarry Banks Modified over 9 years ago
1
very preliminary Comparative Advantage and the Effects of Place-Based Policies: Evidence from China’s Export Processing Zones Zhao Chen #, Sandra Poncet *, Ruixiang Xiong # # China Center of Economic Studies, Fudan University * Paris School of Economics (University of Paris 1) and CEPII 2015-5-23
2
I. Introduction Industry policies, place-based policies and Economic Zones in China No conclusive conclusions about the effectiveness of place-based policies (Moretti, 2010, Busso et al., 2013) Difficulties in evaluation of industry policies (Krugman, 1983) –How to measure industry policy –How to identify the causality 2015-5-23
3
I. Introduction In this paper –The effects of export-processing zones (EPZs) Clear policy purpose The role of comparative advantage –DID estimation using a quasi-experiment of EPZs in China. 2015-5-23
4
II. Brief literature review The effect of industry policies (Cai, Harrison and Lin, 2011) – Tariff policy has positive impact on TFP of industries with comparative advantage – Comments: Tariff policy & TFP Comparative advantage: exporting firms Policy of protection vs. policy of promotion
5
II. Brief literature review Policy evaluation of Economic Zones City-level data (Wei, 1995; Wang, 2013; Alder et al., 2013) Firm-level data (Head and Ries, 1996; Schminke and Van Biesebroeck, 2013) Comments: – policy at city-level, no within city difference – Few concern about the heterogeneous impact This paper: – Policy difference at city-industry level – Comparative advantage
6
III. Background of China’s EPZs Aim: promote exports by preferential policies Establishment : 2015-5-23 Establishment yearNumber of EPZs 200015 20013 20028 200313 200518 total57
7
III. Background of China’s EPZs Only some industries chosen as key industries could enjoy preferential policies Preferential policies in EPZs : free VAT, free trade for imported components; facilitate firm’s exporting outside : tax reimbursement when providing firms in EPZs with intermediate goods 2015-5-23
8
IV. Data Data source –China annual survey of manufacturing firms from 1998 to 2007 Sample –To make the cities more comparable, we only include the cities having EPZs by 2005 2015-5-23
9
3. Data Data cleaning Basic cleaning (Brandt et al., 2012, Nie et al., 2012) Industry classification adjustment (Yang et al., 2013) Administrative division adjustment (Bao et al., 2013) Price deflator Exporting firms (1998-2007) Matching key industries 2015-5-23
10
4. Empirical Results 2015-5-23
11
4. Empirical Results How to define comparative advantage (CA): – Q ci = 1, if location entropy for industry i in city c > 1 before EPZ establishment, otherwise 0 Regression –Full sample –Subsample with CA –Subsample without CA –Triple-interaction term with Q ci 2015-5-23
12
4.1 Basic model (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Full-sample Without CA With CA Full- sample Without CA With CA OLS FE T-0.0477-0.0106-0.0547 - 0.0594** *-0.0317-0.0640*** (0.0326)(0.0344)(0.0360)(0.0191)(0.0291)(0.0217) K-0.03320.00541-0.0414 (0.0337)(0.0364)(0.0394) T*K 0.0663**0.009030.0830***0.104***0.03670.123*** (0.0255)(0.0299)(0.0283)(0.0157)(0.0303)(0.0169) Constant-0.909***-1.388***-0.404-0.247-0.328*-0.229 (0.232)(0.143)(0.283)(0.243)(0.169)(0.313) Cluster-CityYES Obs338,21197,966240,245338,21197,966240,245 R-squared0.912 0.9130.9190.9160.921 Number of panelid 75,19722,46452,733 2015-5-23
13
4.2 long-run effects Reference group: n = - 5 [-7, -6, -5] (n=-4) * K ci (n=-3) * K ci …… (n= 4) * K ci (n= 5) * K ci
14
4.2 long-run effects: full sample 2015-5-23
15
4.2 long-run effects: sub-sample w/o CA 2015-5-23
16
4.2 long-run effects: sub-sample with CA 2015-5-23
17
5. Robustness checks 2015-5-23
18
5.1 Using interaction terms ( FE ) T-0.0185 (0.0325) T*K 0.0451 (0.0319) T*Q -0.0549* (0.0330) T*K*Q 0.0811** (0.0333) Constant-0.241 (0.240) Cluster-cityYES Observations338,211 R-squared0.919 Number of panelid75,197 2015-5-23
19
5.2 Considering firm’s relocation 2015-5-23 (1)(2)(3) full-sampleWithout CAWith CA T-0.0481**-0.0192-0.0539** (0.0194)(0.0282)(0.0225) T*K0.108***0.03760.128*** (0.0159)(0.0287)(0.0172) Constant-0.265-0.356**-0.253 (0.217)(0.162)(0.276) Cluster-CityYES Observations277,61079,517198,093 R-squared0.9190.9160.921 Number of panelid56,09016,55539,535
20
5.3 Omitted governance abilities ( FE ) (1)(2)(3) Full-sampleWithout CAWith CA T-0.0169-0.0115-0.0149 (0.0347)(0.0441)(0.0378) T*K 0.0873***0.003930.108*** (0.0281)(0.0434)(0.0311) Constant-0.0469-0.144-0.0499 (0.269)(0.147)(0.364) Cluster-CityYES Observations158,34045,687112,653 R-squared0.9200.9180.921 Number of panelid34,56910,23324,336 2015-5-23
21
5.4 Higher export intensity firms ( FE ) Prologis ( 2008 ) (1)(2)(3) Full-sampleWithout CAWith CA T-0.0524**-0.00726-0.0652** (0.0256)(0.0354)(0.0266) T*K 0.110***0.03460.130*** (0.0215)(0.0457)(0.0231) Constant-0.539-0.570**-0.546 (0.436)(0.225)(0.554) Cluster-CityYES Observations166,80947,361119,448 R-squared0.9300.9320.930 Number of panelid38,76611,51227,254 2015-5-23
22
6. Conclusions and implications Conclusions Average effects Overall: 10.4% Industries with CA : 12.3%; otherwise no effects Long-run effects Industries with CA : from 9.8% to 24.4% Otherwise no effects Policy implication : local initial conditions are important when making place-based policies 2015-5-23
23
Thank You ! 2015-5-23
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.