The impacts of spatially targeted programmes: evidence from Guangdong

Abstract

Spatially targeted policies have been a crucial component of the development strategy pursued by the Chinese government. This paper provides novel empirical evidence in the debate on place-based policy by testing whether the presence of economic development zones is associated with higher values of industrial output and their impact is heterogeneous across territories in the counties/districts in Guangdong during the period 2000-2014. The results show that the level of industrial output is positively correlated with the presence of economic development zones and offer support to the idea that place-based policies have heterogeneous effects across territories.

Investigating the linkages between industrial policies and M&A dynamics: Evidence from China

“…In this respect, rather than going towards an open market economy, the national system has moved towards capitalism with Chinese characteristics or a socialist market system, in which Chinese governments have been active in designing and driving the structural changes of their economy. The selectivity of policies is a constitutive part of this framework (Di Tommaso et al, 2013;Barbieri et al, 2020b;Nolan, 2001;Zheng et al, 2016). From this perspective, since the 1980s, the Chinese government has intensively produced a large number of industrial-policy measures, forming a complex structure in which the same instruments have been adapted to reach different shifting objectives (Di Tommaso et al, 2013;Barbieri et al, 2020a;Jiang and Li, 2010;Xiang and Zhang, 2013).…”

“…Finally, we also add a dummy variable discriminating before and after 2008. In 2008, in addition to the international economic impact of the global crisis, China somewhat changed its approach towards industrial policy, which has become more systematic and strategic (Jiang and Li, 2010) and increasingly focused on nurturing internal market endogenous growth and resources (Barbieri et al, 2020b;Di Tommaso et al, 2013). Table 3 reports the summary statistics for the variables of interest and the controls.…”

Local economic development in Thailand

“…China introduced its first SEZs in the coastal areas in 1978 as a sandboxed experiment with market transition (Alder et al, 2016). While used as a laboratory for policy experimentation in China for over 40 years, the focus of those experiments changed multiple times from market transition in the 1980s to trade liberalization in the 1990s to liberalization of capital flows more recently (Barbieri et al, 2020). While the first SEZs in China were established by the national government as the key vehicle of its open‐door policy, Alder et al (2016, p. 306) pointed out that even then, “local political leaders were granted substantial autonomy and could shape key aspects of industrial policy.”…”

“…For example, the French EZ program (ZFU) was found responsible for increases in firms in the target area via both births and relocations, but this was primarily caused by the diversion of firms from neighboring unsubsidized areas (Givord et al, 2013; Mayer et al, 2017). The aforementioned study of SEZs in the Chinese province of Guangdong (Barbieri et al, 2020) found that the presence of zones (both national and subnational) in one county is associated with lower industrial output in neighboring counties. By contrast, by applying the difference‐in‐difference method to the 1988–2010 data on prefecture‐level cities throughout China, Alder et al (2016) found positive and often significant spillover effects of national SEZs establishment in one area on neighboring cities.…”

“…Using a difference-in-difference design, Barbieri et al (2020) found that the presence and the intensity (as measured by the number) of economic development zones (both national and subnational) in different counties of the Chinese province of Guangdong were associated with a higher industrial output in counties and districts that hosted these zones in 2000-2014.…”