| As an important part of the bond market and government investment and financing,urban investment bonds have a significant impact on the macro economy,but the path of urban investment bonds’ effect on economic development is complicated.It can be seen from the previous theoretical and practical experience that the impact of issuing urban investment bonds on the economy includes both direct impact and indirect impact,that is,debt investment will directly form public capital and have an impact on economic growth.It also affects the economy through indirect influences on private capital,consumption,money supply,tax,interest rate and other factors,including positive and negative influences.That is to say,on the one hand,urban investment bonds improve the efficiency of resource utilization,drive investment,defuse financial risks and promote economic development;on the other hand,they aggravate the unreasonable allocation of resources,squeeze out investment,increase financial risks and hinder economic development.In order to specifically study the economic influence direction,coefficient size and stage characteristics of the scale of urban investment bonds on regions with different economic development requirements,this paper takes the scale of provincial urban investment bonds from2013 to 2021 as the research object.First,provincial panel data is used to build a model to analyze the linear relationship between urban investment bonds and economic growth,and GDP growth is selected as the variable of economic development.The proportion of the balance of urban investment bonds in GDP is taken as the variable of the scale of urban investment bonds,and the quadratic term of the scale of urban investment bonds is introduced into the model to investigate the nonlinear relationship between them.The empirical results show that: in the online relationship and symmetrical "U" shaped relationship,the debt scale of urban investment bonds has no significant impact on economic growth.Based on this conclusion,the paper further establishes the threshold regression model,and the empirical results show that: The relationship between urban investment bonds and local economic growth presents an asymmetric inverted "U" shape,with a threshold value of 0.1064.When it is lower than the threshold,the growth of urban investment bonds debt scale will significantly promote economic growth,with a coefficient value of 0.145.When it is higher than the threshold value,the expansion of urban investment bond debt plays an obstructive role in economic growth,and the coefficient value is-0.219.In order to test whether there is heterogeneity in the impact of urban investment bonds on economic development,two regional division methods are adopted in this paper.One is to divide provinces into three regions,namely central,eastern and western regions.It is found that the impact of urban investment bonds scale on economic development in the three regions presents an asymmetric "inverted U-shaped" relationship,but there is obvious heterogeneity,and the eastern region has the highest threshold.Urban investment bonds have the longest positive effect on economic development,and the central threshold is the lowest.The issuance of urban investment bonds in the eastern region is the most beneficial to the economy,with the largest promoting effect and the smallest inhibiting effect.The central region has the smallest promoting effect on the economic development before reaching the threshold value,and the largest negative effect on the economic development after reaching the threshold value.Secondly,the provinces are divided into three regions according to the urban debt ratio: high debt ratio,medium debt ratio and low debt ratio.It is found that the impact of the scale of urban debt on economic development in the three regions also presents an asymmetric "inverted U-shaped" relationship and obvious heterogeneity.The threshold of the region with moderate debt ratio is the highest,while that of the region with low debt ratio is the lowest.The negative effect on economic development is the least in areas with high debt ratio after reaching the threshold,while the promoting effect on economic development is the greatest in areas with low debt ratio before reaching the threshold.The asymmetric inverted "U" shaped conclusion is still valid after two robustness tests: changing the economic development index from economic growth rate to industrial structure upgrading index and changing the sample interval from 2009 to 2021. |
PDF Full Text Request