宜居的城市更吸引外资企业？

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.01.114

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (6)

Download: PDF (839 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Theoretical and empirical research on the location choice of FDI is an important topic in the field of cross-border investment. The geographical distribution of foreign direct investment in China shows great spatial diversity. Most of the existing studies explain this phenomenon in terms of local market demand, labor costs, infrastructure, human capital, taxation, institutions, and other production factors. Cities are the main spatial structural units of economic geography research. Urban livability has an important impact on urban economic development, population migration, and enterprise location. The longitude and latitude span between different cities in China is large, the climatic conditions are different, and the degree of economic development is large, but the influence of urban livability factors on the location choice of foreign-funded enterprises has not been paid enough attention. An in-depth discussion of the influence of urban livability factors on the geographical distribution of foreign investment can help understand the distribution of foreign investment in China and then promote economic development according to local conditions. This paper focuses on the influence of urban livability on the location choice of foreign-funded enterprises in China. It uses the site selection data of new foreign-invested enterprises from 2003 to 2013, constructs a conditional logistic model for the location choice of foreign-funded enterprises between cities, and analyzes the role of urban livability in the location choice of new foreign-funded enterprises. The study finds that natural amenity and social amenity have a positive impact on the choice of new foreign-funded enterprises. This impact is even more pronounced in the social livability associated with urban public services. Moreover, amenity has a greater positive effect on large-scale enterprises, labor-intensive enterprises, and high-tech enterprises. In terms of the robustness of empirical results, this article explores three perspectives. Firstly, considering that the location choice of foreign enterprises has obvious agglomeration effects, in order to avoid the biased distribution of samples from weakening the credibility of the empirical results, the top five cities by the number of enterprises are removed. Secondly, aiming at the bias that may result from empirical model selection, Poisson regression and negative binomial regression are used to test the robustness. Finally, in order to avoid the problem of amenity measurement error, the robustness test is carried out using utility valuation estimation of urban livability. The research shows that building a good urban livable environment is the embodiment of the “people-oriented” development concept of urban administrators in the new era, and it is also an important way to promote urban investment attraction. Therefore, urban investment attraction should not only consider the convenience of company operations from the aspects of taxation and market environment, but also consider the public service needs of enterprises and talents from the perspective of urban livability, so as to create a greater attraction. At the same time, we should pay full attention to the bottlenecks and limits to development that come from local livability conditions, and cater for our policies to the needs of the area.

Key words： amenity location choice geographical distribution Conditional Logit Model Chinese industrial enterprises FDI

Received: 11 January 2022

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Song Huasheng
	Sun Guili
	Luo Deming

Cite this article:

Song Huasheng,Sun Guili,Luo Deming. Does Amenity Affect the Location Choice of Firms? Evidences from Foreign Direct Investments in China[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(11): 75-92.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.01.114 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2022/V52/I11/75

1 Hou L.， Li K. & Li Q. et al.， “Revisiting the location of FDI in China： a panel data approach with heterogeneous shocks，” Journal of Econometrics， Vol. 221， No.2 （2021）， pp. 483-509.
2 Hou L.， Li Q. & Wang Y. et al.， “Wages， labor quality， and FDI inflows： a new non-linear approach，” https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.105557， 2022-01-11.
3 Li X.， Quan R. & Stoian M. C. et al.， “Do MNEs from developed and emerging economies differ in their location choice of FDI？ a 36-year review， ” International Business Review， Vol. 27， No. 5 （2018）， pp. 1089-1103.
4 Glaeser E. L.， Kolko J. & Saiz A.， “Consumer city，” Journal of Economic Geography， Vol. 1 （2001）， pp. 27-50.
5 Gaigné C.， Koster H. R. A. & Moizeau F. et al.， “Who lives where in the city？ Amenities， commuting and income sorting，” https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2021.103394， 2022-01-11.
6 Wu Y.， Wei Y. D. & Li H. et al.， “Amenity， firm agglomeration， and local creativity of producer services in Shanghai，” https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103421， 2022-01-11.
7 Hall R. E. & Jones C. I.， “Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others？” http：//dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3595， 2022-01-11.
8 Krugman P.， “Increasing returns and economic geography，” Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 99 （1999）， pp. 483-499.
9 Lepp?nen S.， Ledyaeva S. & Kosonen R.， “Weather as a competitive factor between local and foreign manufacturing companies in Russia，” Journal of Industry， Competition and Trade， Vol. 16 （2016）， pp. 499-513.
10 Albouy D.， “What are cities worth？ land rents， local productivity， and the total value of amenities， ” The Review of Economics and Statistics， Vol. 98， No. 3 （2016）， pp. 477-487.
11 Love L. L. & Crompton J. L.， “The role of quality of life in business （re）location decisions， ” Journal of Business Research， Vol. 44， No. 3 （1999）， pp. 211-222.
12 Li M.， Goetz S. J. & Partridge M. et al.， “Location determinants of high-growth firms，” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development， Vol. 28， No. 1-2 （2016）， pp. 97-125.
13 Naldi L.， Nilsson P. & Westlund H. et al.， “Amenities and new firm formation in rural areas，” Journal of Rural Studies， Vol. 85 （2021）， pp. 32-42.
14 Moeller K.， “Culturally clustered or in the cloud？ how amenities drive firm location decision in Berlin，” Journal of Regional Science， Vol. 58， No. 4 （2018）， pp. 728-758.
15 王芳芳、郝前进：《环境管制与内外资企业的选址策略差异——基于泊松回归的分析》，《世界经济文汇》2011年第4期，第29-40页。
16 Florida R.， “Bohemia and economic geography，” Journal of Economic Geography， Vol. 2， No. 1 （2002）， pp. 55-71.
17 Glaeser E. L. & Gottlieb J. D.， “Urban resurgence and the consumer city，” Urban Studies， Vol. 43， No. 8 （2006）， pp. 1275-1299.
18 张文忠：《城市内部居住环境评价的指标体系和方法》，《地理科学》2007年第1期，第17-23页。
19 李业锦、张文忠、田山川等：《宜居城市的理论基础和评价研究进展》，《地理科学进展》2008年第3期，第101-109页。
20 Rosen S.， “Wage-based indexes of urban， quality of life，” in Mieszkowski P. & Straszheim M. （eds.）， Current Issues in Urban Economics， Baltimore： Johns Hopkins University Press， 1979， pp. 74-104.
21 Südekum J.， “Regional costs-of-living with congestion and amenity differences： an economic geography perspective，” The Annals of Regional Science， Vol. 43 （2009）， pp. 49-69.
22 Roback J.， “Wages， rents， and the quality of life，” Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 90， No. 6 （1982）， pp. 1257-1278.
23 张治国、欧国立：《高铁网络、虹吸效应与城市群引资》，《经济问题》2022年第2期，第34-41，78页。
24 Majocchi A. & Presutti M.， “Industrial clusters， entrepreneurial culture and the social environment： the effects on FDI distribution，” International Business Review， Vol. 18， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 76-88.
25 杨勇、丁雪、魏伟等：《地区适宜性、空间分类效应与区域引资绩效研究》，《中国软科学》2017年第8期，第112-120页。
26 潘士远、朱丹丹、徐恺：《中国城市过大抑或过小？——基于劳动力配置效率的视角》，《经济研究》2018年第9期，第68-82页。
27 Albrecht J.， Carrillo-Tudela C. & Vroman S.， “On-the-job search with match-specific amenities，” Economics Letters， Vol. 162 （2018）， pp. 15-17.
28 Gabriel S. A.， Mattey J. P. & Wascher W. L.， “Compensating differentials and evolution in the quality-of-life among U.S. states，” Regional Science and Urban Economics， Vol. 33， No. 5 （2003）， pp. 619-649.
29 Redding S. J. & Sturm D. M.， “The costs of remoteness： evidence from german division and reunification，” American Economic Review， Vol. 98， No. 5 （2008）， pp. 1766-1797.
30 Diamond R.， “The determinants and welfare implications of US workers’ diverging location choices by skill： 1980-2000，” American Economic Review， Vol. 106， No. 3 （2016）， pp. 479-524.
31 韩峰、李玉双：《产业集聚、公共服务供给与城市规模扩张》，《经济研究》2019年第11期，第149-164页。
32 Huang D. J.， Leung C. K. & Qu B.， “Do bank loans and local amenities explain Chinese urban house prices？” China Economic Review， Vol. 34 （2015）， pp. 19-38.
33 Desmet K. & Rossi-Hansberg E.， “Urban accounting and welfare，” American Economic Review， Vol. 103， No. 6 （2013）， pp. 2296-2327.
34 杨勇、丁雪、赵奇伟：《中国地区宜居度的数量测度与空间效应》，《经济评论》，2019年第4期，第49-61页。
35 Cheng S. & Stough R. R.， “Location decisions of Japanese new manufacturing plants in China： a discrete-choice analysis，” The Annals of Regional Science， Vol. 40， No. 2 （2006）， pp. 369-387.
36 Guimar?es P.， Figueirdo O. & Woodward D.， “A tractable approach to the firm location decision problem，” The Review of Economics and Statistics， Vol. 85， No. 1 （2003）， pp. 201-204.
37 Schmidheiny K. & Brülhart M.， “On the equivalence of location choice models： Conditional logit， nested logit and Poisson，” Journal of Urban Economics， Vol. 69， No. 2 （2011）， pp. 214-222.
38 Herger N. & McCorriston S.， “On discrete location choice models， ” Economics Letters， Vol. 120， No. 2 （2013）， pp. 288-291.
39 戴觅、余淼杰、Madhura Maitra：《中国出口企业生产率之谜：加工贸易的作用》，《经济学（季刊）》2014年第2期，第675-698页。
40 倪骁然、朱玉杰：《劳动保护、劳动密集度与企业创新——来自2008年〈劳动合同法〉实施的证据》，《管理世界》2016年第7期，第154-167页。