2009年-世界发展银行全球_Who_Survives__The_Impact_of_Corruption_Competition_and_Property_Rights_across_Firms_44页_656kb

Summary of "Who Survives?" by Mary Hallward-Driemeier

Core Content

This paper investigates the impact of the investment climate on firm survival, focusing on how corruption, competition, and property rights influence the likelihood of firm exit. Using a new panel dataset from 27 Eastern European and Central Asian countries, the study examines the role of five key dimensions of the business environment: the efficiency of government services, access to finance, the extent of corruption or cronyism, the strength of property rights, and the degree of competition. The findings suggest that investment climate factors significantly affect both the rate and composition of firm exits, with implications for overall productivity and resource allocation.

Main Viewpoints

• Investment Climate and Firm Survival: The investment climate plays a crucial role in determining which firms exit and which survive. Poorer investment climates are associated with higher exit rates, especially for more productive firms.
• Transaction Costs vs. Market Mechanisms: Investment climate factors are grouped into two categories: those that raise transaction costs (e.g., red tape, crime, bribes) and those that affect market mechanisms (e.g., competition, access to finance, property rights).
• Productivity and Exit: Weaknesses in the investment climate can raise the productivity threshold required for survival. This means that more productive firms may be more likely to exit in a poor climate, while less productive firms may be shielded from exit.
• Firm Size and Exit: The impact of the investment climate varies by firm size. Small firms (less than 10 employees) are disproportionately affected by access to finance, while middle-sized firms (10–49 employees) are more affected by competition and property rights. Larger firms (50+ employees) are more influenced by weak property rights.
• Ownership and Exit: State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are less likely to exit due to non-market factors such as soft budget constraints. Foreign-owned firms may be more or less affected by a weak investment climate, depending on the context and their ability to navigate local challenges.

Key Information

• Data and Methodology: The study uses a panel dataset of 4,800 firms from 27 countries, with follow-up data from 2002 to 2005. The data includes both objective and subjective measures of the business environment.
• Findings on Exit Rates: The average annualized exit rate across the sample is 7.6%. Exit rates are higher in areas with higher levels of corruption, crime, and regulatory delays, and lower in areas with stronger property rights and more developed financial institutions.
• Impact on Productivity: The exit of more productive firms in poor investment climates undermines the Schumpeterian "cleansing" role of exit, which is supposed to raise productivity by removing inefficient firms. Conversely, weaker market mechanisms may allow less productive firms to survive, which can have a negative impact on overall productivity.
• Non-linear Effects: The study finds that the impact of investment climate factors on firm survival is not linear. There is a significant size cutoff, particularly at 10 employees, where the effects of the investment climate on firm exit change.
• Empirical Model: The paper presents a model where firms decide to exit or continue based on the expected discounted value of net cash flows. The model incorporates firm characteristics, sector dummies, country dummies, and measures of the business environment.

Investment Climate Dimensions

1. Factors Raising Transaction Costs

• Red Tape and Inefficiency: Delays and inefficient government services increase the costs of doing business, making it harder for firms to remain profitable.
• Crime and Bribes: Crime can lead to losses or increased security costs, while bribes increase transaction costs. These factors are hypothesized to increase the likelihood of firm exit.
• Ambiguity of Corruption: Corruption can either act as "sand" (hindering market efficiency) or "grease" (facilitating transactions). The paper tests these hypotheses by examining the sign of the corruption coefficient and the interaction term with firm productivity.

2. Factors Affecting Market Mechanisms

• Competition: Greater competition is associated with the weeding out of inefficient firms. It increases the pressure on firms to be more productive.
• Access to Finance: More developed financial markets help channel resources to more productive uses and increase the discipline on firm behavior, thus facilitating exit of less productive firms.
• Property Rights: Stronger property rights are linked to better market discipline and the ability to conduct arms-length transactions. They are associated with higher exit rates for less productive firms.

Conclusion

The paper emphasizes the importance of combining firm heterogeneity with detailed measures of the investment climate to better understand firm exit patterns. It concludes that improving the investment climate can enhance the efficiency of resource allocation and overall productivity, particularly by facilitating the exit of less productive firms. The results also highlight the need for further research into how different types of firms, especially small and foreign-owned ones, are affected by the investment climate.