Narrow Results

This paper examines the impact of fiscal deficit and its financing pattern on private corporate sector investment in India, for the period from 1970–1971 to 2012–2013. Using Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) Models, the study finds that fiscal deficit crowds out private investment both in the long run and in the short run. The results also show that internal (domestic) financing of fiscal deficit has significant negative impact on private investment but external (foreign) financing of fiscal deficit has insignificant effect. In the short run, availability of bank credit plays a more important role in investment decision making than the rate of interest in India. The study suggests that government should maintain the fiscal deficit within a sustainable level by reducing its unnecessary non-developmental expenditure, subsidies etc. The government should restructure its financing pattern of fiscal deficit since internal financing has a significant negative impact on private investment.

This paper evaluated productivity through metafrontier slacks-based measure, and explored the time and regional heterogeneity of productivity from static and dynamic perspectives. We also conducted convergence analysis on productivity. Our empirical results show that the east has the highest Technological Gap Ratio (TGR), which reveals that the east has the lowest production technology heterogeneity in China. Production heterogeneity has increased since 2004. FDI had negative effects on productivity, especially in the middle, west and northeast regions, which indicates FDI had a “crowding out” effect in China. Productivity displayed a convergence trend from 2004 to 2012. It is important for China’s local firms to enhance indigenous innovation and increase knowledge spillover in order to decrease their production technology gap.

This paper investigates the implications of government borrowing for corporate financing and capital structure of the firms. In doing so, we explore the effects of government debt, macroeconomic and firm-specific factors on firm’s choice of financing and capital structure. We draw on the 10-year data (2007–2017) of 225 non-financial firms listed on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange (HoSE) and employ the system Generalized Method of Moments (system-GMM) for estimation. Our key findings suggest that the government borrowing and debt financing for the Vietnamese listed companies have a negative relationship. Specifically, the short-term corporate leverage structure is influenced more strongly than the long-term leverage structure. We also define the threshold for the association between government borrowing and corporate financing decisions by capturing a U-shaped relationship i.e., Crowding out Kuznets Curve (CKC). Furthermore, macroeconomic factors also show a statistically significant impact on corporate financing decisions. Our findings have profound implications for the fiscal and public policymakers, investors as well as corporate finance managers and firms.

Due to the crisis of 2007–2009, financial friction macro models are being used to provide a theoretical foundation for the evaluation of ‘unconventional policy’. In these models, banks take deposits from households and lend to firms. Empirically, other financial channels that are missing in the models, such as corporate bonds and equity, are also important. This paper analyzes a model in which bank loans and equity are both feasible. Households have limited ability to enforce their claims. If either the bank or the equity market are undistorted, the equilibrium is socially efficient. If both are distorted, the equilibrium is inefficient. In that case, government policy aimed at the bank or at the firm can be helpful. Suitably chosen equity injections, loans, or interest rate subsidies can all work. Interest rate subsidies have the advantage that they occur later and there is less concern about cheating. Equity injections have the advantage that they minimize the necessary level of tax imposed on households that is needed to achieve optimality. Optimal equity injections and optimal loan subsidies induce reductions in household savings (‘crowding out’). Optimal interest rate subsidies induce increases in household savings (‘crowding in’).