How Do Technology Finance Policies Affect the Specialized Division of Labor among Enterprises: Evidences from the Policy of Promoting the Integration of Science and Technology with Finance Pilot Program

Abstract

Abstract: Building an efficient and collaborative industrial chain division system is an inevitable requirement for unblocking the unified national market. Taking the policy of“promoting the combination of science, technology and finance”as a quasi-natural experiment and based on the data of A-share listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2009 to 2022, this study uses the difference-in-differences model to evaluate the impact of science and technology finance policies on the division of labor level of enterprises. The research finds that science and technology finance policies can significantly improve the level of specialized division of labor of enterprises. The mechanism analysis shows that science and technology finance policies can guide the specialized division of labor of enterprises through two major paths. One is relying on the information interaction effect brought by the policies to strengthen the financial and information exchanges between enterprises and their supply chain partners, which is reflected in the“information transmission mechanism”. The other is seeking help through policy practices such as financial system innovation to reduce external transaction costs represented by searching costs and financing costs, which is reflected in the“transaction cost mechanism”. The heterogeneity analysis shows that the samples of enterprises located in the regions with a low level of financial development, in the competitive industries, or with a lower degree of digital transformation, the promoting effect of science and technology finance policies on their specialized division of labor is more obvious. Therefore, we should continue to promote the deep integration of technology and finance, improve the differentiated technology and finance policies, strengthen the synergy between technology and finance, digital finance, and industrial policies, so as to better leverage the advantages of deepening division of labor in the super large scale market.

Key words: science and technology finance, specialized division of labor in enterprises, double difference model, information transmission, transaction cost

CLC Number:

F279.23
F832

Shen Wei-peng, Liu Sheng, Gu Nai-hua. How Do Technology Finance Policies Affect the Specialized Division of Labor among Enterprises: Evidences from the Policy of Promoting the Integration of Science and Technology with Finance Pilot Program[J]. Journal of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, 2026, 0(2): 48-59.

References

[1] 曹廷求, 彭文浩. 科技金融政策的创新溢出效应——来自供应商-客户关系的证据[J]. 当代财经, 2024, (10): 59-72.
[2] 曹友斌. 司法体制改革与企业专业化分工:基于交易成本和市场规模的视角[J]. 南方经济, 2025, (3): 58-79.
[3] 褚希伟, 王婧卜. 科技金融政策对数字企业全球价值链位势攀升的影响研究[J]. 当代经济研究, 2024, (6): 116-128.
[4] 范子英, 彭飞. “营改增”的减税效应和分工效应: 基于产业互联的视角[J]. 经济研究, 2017, (2): 82-95.
[5] 顾乃华, 沈伟鹏, 李剑培. 政府数字治理驱动企业专业化分工的机理研究[J]. 经济纵横, 2025, (7): 90-103.
[6] 胡欢欢, 刘传明. 科技金融政策能否促进产业结构转型升级?[J]. 国际金融研究, 2021, (5): 24-33.
[7] 黄先明, 李泽雯. 数字贸易规则如何促进数字贸易规模增长——来自共建“一带一路”国家的证据[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2025, (3): 96-110.
[8] 黄志刚, 张霆. 科技金融有助于提高企业出口产品质量吗[J]. 国际贸易问题, 2022, (10): 19-37.
[9] 江三良, 贾芳芳. 科技金融政策对城市碳排放绩效的影响效应研究——基于“科技与金融结合试点”的准自然实验[J]. 软科学, 2024, (3): 37-43.
[10] 马述忠, 张洪胜. 集群商业信用与企业出口——对中国出口扩张奇迹的一种解释[J]. 经济研究, 2017, (1): 13-27.
[11] 裴长洪, 刘洪愧. 构建新发展格局科学内涵研究[J]. 中国工业经济, 2021, (6): 5-22.
[12] 唐松, 苏雪莎, 赵丹妮. 金融科技与企业数字化转型——基于企业生命周期视角[J]. 财经科学, 2022, (2): 17-32.
[13] 向宇, 钟荣芸, 郑倩. 科技与金融结合如何影响企业技术创新质量——来自“促进科技和金融结合试点”政策的证据[J]. 财经科学, 2024, (11): 135-148.
[14] 许嘉扬, 郭福春. 绿色发展视角下中国科技金融政策的创新支持效果研究[J]. 浙江社会科学, 2023, (4): 21-31+157.
[15] 徐怀宁, 刘莎莎, 田亚男. 智慧供应链建设对中小企业分工的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2025, (8): 1547-1555.
[16] 詹新宇, 梁蓝心. 链长制如何“链”出企业技术创新[J]. 中国工业经济, 2024, (11): 137-155.
[17] 周少甫, 叶宁, 詹闻喆. 科技和金融结合试点政策对地区创新的影响研究——基于金融科技视角[J]. 经济学家, 2023, (8): 95-106.
[18] 周小昶, 赵仁杰, 曾艺. 社会信用环境与企业专业化[J]. 财贸经济, 2024, (8): 121-136.
[19] Borusyak K, Jaravel X, Spiess J.Revisiting event-study designs: Robust and efficient estimation[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2024, 91(6): 3253-3285.
[20] Braguinsky S, Ohyama A, Okazaki T, et al.Product innovation, product diversification, and firm growth: Evidence from Japan's early industrialization[J]. American Economic Review, 2021, 111(12): 3795-3826.
[21] Callaway B, Sant'Anna P H C. Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2021, 225(2): 200-230.
[22] Coase R H.The nature of the firm[J]. Economica, 1937, 4(16): 386-405.
[23] De Chaisemartin C, D' Haultfoeuille X.Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects[J]. American Economic Review, 2020, 110(9): 2964-2996.
[24] Du J, Lu Y, Tao Z.Contracting institutions and vertical integration: Evidence from China's manufacturing firms[J]. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2012, 40(1): 89-107.
[25] Fang G, Gao T, He H, et al.Public credit information arrangements and entrepreneurship: Evidence from China[J]. China Economic Review, 2023, 81: 102030.
[26] Gorodnichenko Y, Kukharskyy B, Roland G.Cultural distance, firm boundaries, and global sourcing[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2024, 166: 103175.
[27] Hart O.Firms, contracts, and financial structure[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[28] Kong D, Zhao Y, Liu S.Trust and innovation: Evidence from CEOs' early-life experience[J]. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2021, 69: 101984.
[29] Macchiavello R.Financial development and vertical integration: Theory and evidence[J]. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2012, 10(2): 255-289.
[30] Smith A.The wealth of nations[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1776.
[31] Williamson O E.Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations[J]. The Journal of Law and Economics, 1979, 22(2): 233-261.