数字金融对创业的影响——来自地区和中国家庭追踪调查（CFPS）的证据

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN.33-6000/C.2020.05.213

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1336 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Digital finance refers to a series of changes brought about by the application of digital technology in the financial field. The current digital financial revolution is particularly special in two points. First, many changes have occurred outside the financial industry. Start-ups and large mature technology companies are trying to subvert existing business models, launch new products and technologies, and provide new important means of competition. Second, the application and introduction of the above-mentioned changes in the financial industry are faster than ever before, and the fit between finance and the real economy is constantly deepening. In recent years, the rapid advance of digital finance has attracted considerable attention within the finance industry and is considered to have a profound impact on entrepreneurship.Yet, despite the widespread interest in digital finance, little is currently known about exactly how it will impact entrepreneurship. Taking China as an example, based on the 2011-2018 provincial panel data and the 2018 CFPS data, we investigate the impact of digital finance on entrepreneurship to show the following results. (1) Digital finance has significantly promoted regional entrepreneurship, which is mainly reflected in the two dimensions of the coverage/depth of digital finance. (2) Our findings are particularly pronounced in provinces with low urbanization rates, in provinces with low government intervention, and in provinces with high material capital. (3) We find that the impact of digital finance on entrepreneurship has a threshold effect. After exceeding a certain threshold, digital finance plays a stronger role in promoting entrepreneurship. (4) The direct reason why digital finance promotes regional entrepreneurship is that it promotes family entrepreneurship.Combined with empirical conclusions, this paper proposes the following policy implications: First of all, policy authorities should vigorously support and optimize the construction of the financial infrastructure to improve coverage and popularize financial knowledge so as to increase the demand for financial services from the demander side and to better stimulate regional entrepreneurship. At the same time, government departments and financial institutions should also pay attention to “digital divide” and other issues when looking at digital support services, so as to avoid digital technology becoming the booster of financial exclusion, which is not conducive to regional entrepreneurship. Secondly, it is necessary to implement policies in accordance with local conditions. Provinces with low urbanization rate have late-mover advantages, provinces with high material capital have natural financial resource advantages, provinces with low government intervention have financial innovation power, and digital finance plays a role in these provinces. Thirdly, there is an optimal matching state between digital finance and regional entrepreneurship, so the influence of digital finance on entrepreneurship should be viewed dialectically to prevent digital finance from becoming a double-edged sword for regional entrepreneurship. Finally, digital finance is of great significance to family entrepreneurship, which may be a channel to enhance family wealth.

Received: 21 May 2020

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors

Cite this article:

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN.33-6000/C.2020.05.213 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2021/V51/I1/129

1 胡金焱、张博：《社会网络、民间融资与家庭创业——基于中国城乡差异的实证分析》，《金融研究》2014年第10期，第148-163页。
2 Aghion P., Fally T. & Scarpetta S., “Credit constraints as a barrier to the entry and post-entry growth of firms,” Economic Policy, Vol. 22, No. 52 (2007), pp. 732-779.
3 Lounsbury M., “Institutional transformation and status mobility: the professionalization of the field of finance,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1 (2002), pp. 255-266.
4 Ahlstrom D. & Bruton G. D., “Rapid institutional shifts and the co-evolution of entrepreneurial firms in transition economies,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34, No. 3 (2010), pp. 531-554.
5 Acharya V. & Xu Z., “Financial dependence and innovation: the case of public versus private firms,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 124, No. 2 (2017), pp. 223-243.
6 Bianchi M., “Cedit constraints, entrepreneurial talent, and economic development,” Small Business Economics， Vol. 34， No. 1 （2010）， pp. 93-104.
7 张龙耀、张海宁：《金融约束与家庭创业——中国的城乡差异》，《金融研究》2013年第9期，第123-135页。
8 钱海章、陶云清、曹松威等：《中国数字金融发展与经济增长的理论与实证》，《数量经济技术经济研究》2020年第6期，第26-46页。
9 黄益平、黄卓：《中国的数字金融发展：现在与未来》，《经济学（季刊）》2018年第4期，第1489-1502页。
10 张勋、万广华、张佳佳等：《数字经济、普惠金融与包容性增长》，《经济研究》2019年第8期，第71-86页。
11 谢绚丽、沈艳、张皓星等：《数字金融能促进创业吗？——来自中国的证据》，《经济学（季刊）》2018年第4期，第1557-1580页。
12 Lim D. S., Morse E. A. & Mitchell R. K. et al., “Institutional environment and entrepreneurial cognitions: a comparative business systems perspective,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34, No. 3 (2010), pp. 491-516.
13 马光荣、杨恩艳：《社会网络，非正规金融与创业》，《经济研究》2011年第3期，第83-94页。
14 郭峰、王靖一、王芳等：《测度中国数字普惠金融发展：指数编制与空间特征》，《经济学（季刊）》2020年第4期，第1401-1418页。
15 易行健、周利：《数字普惠金融发展是否显著影响了居民消费——来自中国家庭的微观证据》，《金融研究》2018年第11期，第47-67页。
16 傅秋子、黄益平：《数字金融对农村金融需求的异质性影响——来自中国家庭金融调查与北京大学数字普惠金融指数的证据》，《金融研究》2018年第11期，第68-84页。
17 何婧、李庆海：《数字金融使用与农户创业行为》，《中国农村经济》2019年第1期，第112-126页。
18 Raijman R., “Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: mexican immigrants in Chicago,” The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 30, No. 5 (2001), pp. 393-411.
19 Evans D. S. & Leighton L. S., “The determinants of changes in US self-employment, 1968-1987,” Small Business Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1989), pp. 111-119.
20 Buera F. J., “A dynamic model of entrepreneurship with borrowing constraints: theory and evidence,” Annals of Finance, Vol. 5, No. 3-4 (2009), pp. 443-464.
21 李雪莲、马双、邓翔：《公务员家庭、创业与寻租动机》，《经济研究》2015年第5期，第89-103页。
22 杨婵、贺小刚、李征宇：《家庭结构与农民创业——基于中国千村调查的数据分析》，《中国工业经济》2017年第12期，第170-188页。
23 Glaeser E. L. & Kerr W. R., “Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship: how much of the spatial distribution can we explain,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2009), pp. 623-663.
24 Han L. & Hare D., “The link between credit markets and self-employment choice among households in rural China,” Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 26 (2013), pp. 52-64.
25 吴晓瑜、王敏、李力行：《中国的高房价是否阻碍了创业？》，《经济研究》2014年第9期，第121-134页。
26 黄亮雄、孙湘湘、王贤彬：《反腐败与地区创业：效应与影响机制》，《经济管理》2019年第9期，第5-19页。
27 谢平、邹传伟：《互联网金融模式研究》，《金融研究》2012年第12期，第11-22页。
28 谢平、邹传伟、刘海二：《互联网金融的基础理论》，《金融研究》2015年第8期，第1-12页。
29 Parker S. C., “A time series model of self-employment under uncertainty,” Economica, Vol. 251, No. 63 (1996), pp. 459-475.
30 Yin Z., Gong X. & Guo P. et al., “What drives entrepreneurship in digital economy? evidence from China,” Economic Modelling, Vol. 82 (2019), pp. 66-73.
31 张玉利、杨俊、任兵：《社会资本、先前经验与创业机会——一个交互效应模型及其启示》，《管理世界》2008年第7期，第91-102页。
32 周广肃、樊纲：《互联网使用与家庭创业选择——来自CFPS数据的验证》，《经济评论》2018年第5期，第 134-147页。
33 Banerjee A. V. & Newman A. F., “Occupational choice and the process of development,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 101, No. 2 (1993), pp. 274-298.
34 唐文进、李爽、陶云清：《数字普惠金融发展与产业结构升级——来自283个城市的经验证据》，《广东财经大学学报》2019年第6期，第35-49页。
35 Li J., Wu Y. & Xiao J. J., “The impact of digital finance on household consumption: evidence from China,” Economic Modelling, Vol. 86 (2020), pp. 317-326.
36 孙早、刘李华：《社会保障、企业家精神与内生经济增长》，《统计研究》2019年第1期，第77-91页。
37 黄亮雄、孙湘湘、王贤彬：《商事制度改革有效激发创业了吗？——来自地级市的证据》，《财经研究》2020年第2期，第142-155页。
38 黄群慧、余泳泽、张松林：《互联网发展与制造业生产率提升：内在机制与中国经验》，《中国工业经济》2019年第8期，第5-23页。
39 李建军、韩珣：《普惠金融、收入分配和贫困减缓——推进效率和公平的政策框架选择》，《金融研究》2019年第3期，第129-148页。
40 邱泽奇、张樹沁、刘世定等：《从数字鸿沟到红利差异——互联网资本的视角》，《中国社会科学》2016年第10期，第93-115页。
41 Hansen B. E., “Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 93, No. 2 (1999), pp. 345-368.