| Literature DB >> 32614879 |
Dan He1, Jialiang Yang1, Zhengming Wang1, Wenchao Li1.
Abstract
The logistics industry is a derivative industry of manufacturing services extraposition. A variety of strategies to develop the manufacturing industry are important programs of action for China's manufacturing strategic power, and it is of great significance to promote the high-quality development of the logistics industry. This paper takes strong manufacturing provinces with the development of the logistics industry as the research object and applies network DEA measuring the production efficiency and service efficiency of the logistics industry from 2004 to 2017. This paper adopts the "Made in China 2025" strategy as a natural experiment and uses double difference to study the impact of manufacturing policies on the high-quality development of the logistics industry. The empirical results show that compared with the Reference group, the impact of the "Made in China 2025" strategy led to a significant increase in the production efficiency and service efficiency of the experimental group. The group-based test based on innovation type shows that independent innovation has a significant positive effect on the high-quality development of the logistics industry, which shows that from the perspective of technological innovation, independent innovation is the main path of the "Made in China 2025" strategy to promote the high-quality development of the logistics industry. This paper not only identifies the causal relationship between the "Made in China 2025" strategy and the high-quality development of the logistics industry but also helps clarify the mechanism of how manufacturing policies improve the high-quality development of the logistics industry, which has important implications for further promoting the combined development between manufacturing and logistics.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32614879 PMCID: PMC7332018 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Modeling process of network DEA model.
Input–output indicators for total factor productivity measurement in the logistics industry.
| total efficiency( | production efficiency( | Input indicator | Capital investment |
| Labor input | |||
| Energy input | |||
| Output indicator | Unexpected output | ||
| Comprehensive turnover | |||
| service efficiency( | Input indicator | ||
| Average salary | |||
| Output indicator | Added value in the logistics industry |
Index system of explanatory variables and explained variables in regression equations.
| • Explained variable | Production/Service/Total efficiency | Network DEA calculation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core explanatory variables | Regional grouping | Provinces with pilot areas take 1, otherwise 0 | |
| Time grouping | Take 1 after 2015, otherwise take 0 | ||
| Explanatory variables | Governmental support | Proportion of fiscal expenditure of logistics industry in local fiscal expenditure to measure the government's support for the logistics industry | |
| Scale of economic growth | National GDP as an indicator of the scale of economic growth | ||
| Investment in fixed assets | Taking the investment amount of the fixed assets of the whole society as an index to evaluate the productivity of the logistics industry | ||
| Retail sales of consumer goods | Taking the retail sales of social consumer goods as a critical indicator to examine the impact mechanism of logistics industry productivity | ||
| Industrial structure | Take the added value of the primary industry, the secondary industry, and the tertiary industry as indicators to measure the state of industrial structure adjustment | ||
| Average salary | Taking the average wage of employees in the logistics industry as one of the indicators to examine the production/service efficiency of the logistics industry |
Descriptive statistics of each variable.
| Variable | Mean value | Standard deviation | Minimum value | Median | Maximum value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.157 | 0.0542 | 0.068 | 0.149 | 0.321 | |
| 0.312 | 0.2104 | 0.068 | 0.242 | 1.000 | |
| 2.564 | 1.9818 | 0.305 | 1.931 | 8.971 | |
| 0.984 | 0.8301 | 0.086 | 0.713 | 3.820 | |
| 1.349 | 1.2702 | 0.003 | 0.913 | 5.520 | |
| 0.156 | 0.1373 | 0.008 | 0.129 | 0.498 | |
| 1.180 | 0.9485 | 0.139 | 0.820 | 3.866 | |
| 1.216 | 0.9808 | 0.123 | 0.904 | 4.749 | |
| 0.043 | 0.0293 | 0.001 | 0.043 | 0.217 | |
| 4.518 | 2.653 | 0.6273 | 4.429 | 11.676 |
Fig 2Changes in production efficiency of the logistics industry.
Fig 3Changes in service efficiency of the logistics industry.
"manufacturing development" strategy and high-quality development of China's logistics industry: Single variable t-test results.
| Study group(1) | Reference group(2) | Difference (1)-(2) | T-test (1)-(2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the policy | 0.167 (0.006) | 0.144 (0.007) | 0.023 (0.010) | 2.339 | |
| After the policy | 0.183 (0.015) | 0.144 (0.015) | 0.039 (0.021) | 1.833 | |
| Before the policy | 0.279 (0.025) | 0.342 (0.306) | -0.063 (0.039) | -1.610 | |
| After the policy | 0.263 (0.047) | 0.376 (0.661) | -0.113 (0.813) | -1.391 |
***p<0.05,standard error in brackets, same below.
Estimation results based on the DID model.
| Average effect | Dynamic effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.499*** (0.0000) | 1.588*** (0.0001) | |||
| 0.254*** (0.0000) | 0.257*** (0.0001) | |||
| 0.904*** (0.0004) | 0.167*** (0.0018) | |||
| 1.586*** (0.0012) | -2.230*** (0.0053) | |||
| -2.220*** (0.0002) | -9.882*** (0.0004) | 3.478*** (0.0071) | -29.891*** (0.0313) | |
| 0.963*** (0.0003) | -2.8420** (0.0006) | -2.558*** (0.0035) | 9.519** (0.0157) | |
| -0.727*** (0.0002) | -0.5537*** (0.0003) | -1.413*** (0.0011) | 1.856*** (0.0048) | |
| 5.820*** (0.0047) | -11.223** (0.0088) | 7.466*** (0.0101) | -17.004*** (0.0447) | |
| 2.318** (0.0000) | 7.989*** (0.0001) | 0.357*** (0.0023) | 14.874*** (0.0101) | |
| 1.253*** (0.0004) | 11.233** (0.0008) | -3.873** (0.0069) | 29.234*** (0.0304) | |
| -2.473*** (0.0011) | -4.775*** (0.0020) | 19.986*** (0.0280) | -83.644*** (0.1240) | |
| -0.479*** (0.0000) | -1.885*** (0.0001) | -0.317*** (0.0002) | -2.453** (0.0009) | |
| 2.141*** (0.0006) | 10.689*** (0.0010) | 0.813*** (0.0023) | 15.353*** (0.0102) | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | |
| 0.659 | 0.304 | 0.540 | 0.297 | |
Impact of the "manufacturing development" strategy on the high-quality development of the logistics industry from the perspective of technological innovation (production efficiency).
| 1.132*** (0.0004) | 0.359*** (2.34e-06) | 0.822*** (0.0021) | 0.801*** (0.0000) | |
| 0.146*** (0.0001) | ||||
| 0.770*** (0.0002) | ||||
| -0.020*** (4.97e-06) | ||||
| 0.301*** (2.70e-06) | ||||
| 1.084*** (0.0067) | ||||
| -4.794*** (0.0290) | ||||
| -0.0002*** (0.0000) | ||||
| -0.003*** (0.0000) | ||||
| 2.310*** (0.0004) | 1.823*** (0.0002) | 9.582*** (0.0482) | 1.897*** (0.0003) | |
| control variables | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | |
| 0.208 | 0.182 | 0.288 | 0.130 |
Impact of "manufacturing development" on the high-quality development of the logistics industry from the perspective of technological innovation (service efficiency).
| -0.733*** (0.0003) | 1.044*** (0.0270) | 2.032*** (0.0011) | 1.415*** (0.0000) | |
| 4.992*** (0.0004) | ||||
| 1.220*** (0.0003) | ||||
| 0.035*** (0.0007) | ||||
| -0.120*** (0.0086) | ||||
| 0.912*** (0.0035) | ||||
| -6.700*** (0.0149) | ||||
| 0.004*** (0.0000) | ||||
| -0.009** (0.0000) | ||||
| 9.491*** (0.0007) | 9.827*** (0.1962) | 13.891*** (0.0248) | 1.897*** (0.0004) | |
| control variables | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | |
| 0.514 | 0.427 | 0.427 | 0.499 |
Robustness test results.
| Average effect | Dynamic effect | |
|---|---|---|
| 1.043*** (0.0001) | ||
| 0.255*** (0.0000) | ||
| 0.535*** (0.0012) | ||
| -0.322*** (0.0036) | ||
| -6.051*** (0.0002) | -13.207*** (0.0210) | |
| -0.940*** (0.0003) | 3.481*** (0.0105) | |
| -0.640*** (0.0002) | 0.221*** (0.0032) | |
| -2.701*** (0.0053) | -4.768*** (0.0300) | |
| 5.153*** (0.0000) | 7.616*** (0.0068) | |
| 6.2431*** 0.0005) | 12.681*** (0.0204) | |
| -3.624*** (0.0012) | -31.829*** (0.0833) | |
| -1.182*** (0.0000) | -1.385*** (0.0006) | |
| 6.415*** (0.0006) | 8.083*** (0.0069) | |
| yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | |
| 140 | 140 | |
| 0.876 | 0.943 |
Robustness test results from the perspective of technological innovation.
| -2.862*** (0.0004) | 0.580*** (0.0000) | 1.427*** (0.0013) | 1.108*** (0.0000) | |
| 1.019*** (0.0001) | ||||
| 1.579*** (0.0002) | ||||
| 0.0793*** (0.0000) | ||||
| 0.5303*** (0.0000) | ||||
| 0.998*** (0.0041) | ||||
| -5.747*** (0.0176) | ||||
| 0.002*** (0.0000) | ||||
| -0.006*** (0.0000) | ||||
| 5.490*** (0.0005) | -0.679 (0.0002) | 11.737*** (0.0293) | 4.380*** (0.0002) | |
| control variables | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | |
| 0.421 | 0.587 | 0.361 | 0.440 |
Robustness test results: Proportioning reference group by PSM method.
| 0.287*** (0.0003) | 0.694*** (0.0000) | |
| 3.572*** (0.0030) | -8.344*** (0.0004) | |
| 4.395*** (0.0026) | 4.362*** (0.0002) | |
| -2.030*** (0.0012) | 0.845*** (0.0000) | |
| 46.299*** (0.0357) | 33.153*** (0.0012) | |
| -2.855*** (0.0022) | 8.378*** (0.0002) | |
| -4.601*** (0.0037) | 4.601*** (0.0006) | |
| 23.857*** (0.0166) | 56.154*** (0.0006) | |
| -0.473*** (0.0003) | -0.600*** (0.0000) | |
| -4.497*** (0.0038) | -1.174*** (0.0000) | |
| Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | |
| 115 | 115 | |
| 0.884 | 0.965 |