Baseline results
| (1) | (2) | |
|---|---|---|
| VAR | Innovationt+1 | Innovationt+1 |
| GZW | 0.140*** | 0.138*** |
| (2.90) | (2.91) | |
| Size | 0.122* | |
| (1.79) | ||
| Lev | −0.140 | |
| (−0.72) | ||
| Roa | 0.022 | |
| (0.07) | ||
| Cash | −0.230 | |
| (−1.46) | ||
| Age | −0.165 | |
| (−0.76) | ||
| Insti | −0.186 | |
| (−0.74) | ||
| Indep | −0.119 | |
| (−0.61) | ||
| Top1 | −0.450 | |
| (−1.26) | ||
| Analyst | 0.063** | |
| (2.41) | ||
| Pc | −0.048 | |
| (−0.56) | ||
| Tenure | −0.002 | |
| (−0.32) | ||
| Tmt | −0.035 | |
| (−0.68) | ||
| Constant | 0.201*** | −1.742 |
| (6.55) | (−1.22) | |
| Firm/year | YES | YES |
| Observations | 4,630 | 4,630 |
| R-squared | 0.2216 | 0.2307 |
| (1) | (2) | |
|---|---|---|
| VAR | ||
| 0.140*** | 0.138*** | |
| (2.90) | (2.91) | |
| 0.122* | ||
| (1.79) | ||
| −0.140 | ||
| (−0.72) | ||
| 0.022 | ||
| (0.07) | ||
| −0.230 | ||
| (−1.46) | ||
| −0.165 | ||
| (−0.76) | ||
| −0.186 | ||
| (−0.74) | ||
| −0.119 | ||
| (−0.61) | ||
| −0.450 | ||
| (−1.26) | ||
| 0.063** | ||
| (2.41) | ||
| −0.048 | ||
| (−0.56) | ||
| −0.002 | ||
| (−0.32) | ||
| −0.035 | ||
| (−0.68) | ||
| Constant | 0.201*** | −1.742 |
| (6.55) | (−1.22) | |
| Firm/year | YES | YES |
| Observations | 4,630 | 4,630 |
| 0.2216 | 0.2307 |
Note(s): Table 2 presents the baseline results for establishing local SASACs and SOEs' innovation. The dependent variables in columns (1) and (2) are innovation, measured as the natural logarithm of 1 plus the number of invention patent applications in year t+1 (Innovationt+1). The key independent variable is the establishment of local SASACs (GZW). We report in parentheses t-statistics based on standard errors that are robust to heteroskedasticity. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10; two-tailed test. See Appendix A for variable definitions
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.