Other outcomes of government subsidization
| Dep. var. = | NP (1) | DVAR (2) | QK (3) | QF (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: results based on our baseline sample | ||||
| TREAT ×POST | 0.0420*** (3.10) | −0.0389*** (−2.62) | −0.0760 (−0.60) | −0.0321 (−0.49) |
| POST | −0.0231* (−1.90) | 0.0088 (0.56) | 0.1564 (1.50) | 0.0807 (1.45) |
| Firm-level controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Firm fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| N | 17,218 | 6,807 | 13,873 | 13,873 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.776 | 0.659 | 0.710 | 0.740 |
| Panel B: matching all government subsidies regardless of the amount | ||||
| SUBRATIO ×POST | 0.6299* (1.86) | −1.0159*** (−3.62) | −9.0183** (−2.45) | −4.8141*** (−2.71) |
| POST | 0.0022 (0.34) | 0.0068 (0.90) | 0.0099 (0.18) | 0.0014 (0.05) |
| Firm-level controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Firm fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| N | 42,221 | 17,347 | 32,642 | 32,642 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.782 | 0.703 | 0.688 | 0.722 |
| Dep. var. = | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0420*** (3.10) | −0.0389*** (−2.62) | −0.0760 (−0.60) | −0.0321 (−0.49) | |
| −0.0231* (−1.90) | 0.0088 (0.56) | 0.1564 (1.50) | 0.0807 (1.45) | |
| Firm-level controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Firm fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 17,218 | 6,807 | 13,873 | 13,873 | |
| Adjusted | 0.776 | 0.659 | 0.710 | 0.740 |
| 0.6299* (1.86) | −1.0159*** (−3.62) | −9.0183** (−2.45) | −4.8141*** (−2.71) | |
| 0.0022 (0.34) | 0.0068 (0.90) | 0.0099 (0.18) | 0.0014 (0.05) | |
| Firm-level controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Firm fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 42,221 | 17,347 | 32,642 | 32,642 | |
| Adjusted | 0.782 | 0.703 | 0.688 | 0.722 |
Note(s): This table presents the effects of government subsidization on firms’ other outcomes. Specifically, we focus on the total number of export products (NP), Kee and Tang’s (2016) ratio of domestic value added in exports to gross exports (DVAR), Khandelwal’s (2010) product quality measure (QK) and Fan et al.’s (2015) estimated export product quality (QF). In Panel A, we present results based on our baseline sample. In Panel B, we match all government subsidies regardless of the amount and replace the treatment dummy (TREAT) with the subsidy ratio (SUBRATIO), calculated as the subsidy amount divided by annual sales. The model includes firm and year fixed effects and firm-level control variables. All continuous variables are winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentiles. Presented in the parentheses below each coefficient is the t-value based on standard errors clustered by firm. Constant terms are estimated but omitted for presentation. ***, ** and * represent statistical significance at the 1, 5 and 10% levels, respectively
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Please sign in to your personal account to gift article access.
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses.
You have reached the limit of 10 links within a 30 day period.
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.