| Literature DB >> 35793371 |
Jing-Hua Yin1, Hai-Ying Song1, Ke-Xin Zeng2.
Abstract
As a result of business environment reforms in China's Hangzou, the cost of business has reduced, the confidence of Hangzhou enterprises has survived the COVID-19 outbreak, and foreign investment continues to increase. Nevertheless, Hangzhou's business environment has shortcomings, such as insufficient technology, talent, and intelligent infrastructure. Two unresolved questions persist: (i) Has the smart business environment stimulated corporate investment by reducing system costs and boosting corporate confidence? (ii) How do the commercial climate's shortcomings impact the relationship between the intelligent business environment and business costs/confidence? We examined the impact of a local smart business environment on the corporate investment scale in Hangzhou using factor analysis, cluster analysis, linear regression, and path analyses of data from 297 firm managers. Smart governance improved public administration, financing, and rule of law. The business environment promoted investment by increasing business confidence and decreasing institutional costs. Weak intelligent property protection and legal fairness hindered the positive influence of smart governance on business confidence and system costs. This is the first study combining business environment, smart city, and smart governance concepts to analyze the influence of local smart business environments on business confidence, institutional costs, and investment. Our conclusion on the limitation effect of intelligent business environment on enterprise investment attempts to inspire further research on the intersection of business environments and smart cities. The law of intelligent business environment attracting investment obtained in the context of China, the largest developing country with diversified economic development, is of great significance for other developing countries. Countries can attract investment and promote economic development through intelligent governance. Developing countries should construct smart service platforms, coordinate supervision of public credit, reduce financing constraint, construct a government under the rule of law, improve the quality of land management, and protect intellectual property rights.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35793371 PMCID: PMC9258851 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Theoretical model.
ICT: Information and communications technology; AI: Artificial intelligence; IPR: Intellectual property rights.
Characteristics of sample enterprises.
| Number of employees | Percentage |
| Under 100 | 41.4 |
| 100–200 | 21.2 |
| 200–500 | 18.2 |
| Above 500 | 19.2 |
| Total | 100 |
| Years of doing business in Hangzhou | Percentage |
| Under 10 | 30 |
| 10–15 | 32.3 |
| 15–20 | 16.8 |
| Above 20 | 20.9 |
| Total | 100 |
| R&D staff percentage | Percentage |
| Under 10 | 68.4 |
| 10–15 | 12.1 |
| 15–20 | 8.4 |
| Above 20 | 11.1 |
| Total | 100 |
| Nature of ownership | Percentage |
| State-owned | 27.3 |
| Foreign | 6.7 |
| Private | 66 |
| Total | 100 |
Descriptive statistics.
| Scope | Variable | Measurement methods | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public administration | Public administration | principal component analysis | -2.8826 | 2.3738 |
| Legal environment | Social credit system | Social credit system | 2.0000 | 7.0000 |
| Property rights protection | principal component analysis | -3.0836 | 1.9263 | |
| Legal quality | principal component analysis | -3.3589 | 1.9334 | |
| Market environment | Talent | Talent | 1 | 7 |
| Financing constraint | principal component analysis | -3.6046 | 2.0797 | |
| System cost | Operation cost | principal component analysis | -2.5602 | 2.7603 |
| Entry cost | principal component analysis | -2.5909 | 2.1080 | |
| Infrastructure | Infrastructure | principal component analysis | -3.7902 | 1.7128 |
Resource: Principal component analysis and survey.
Descriptive statistics for the original data.
| Variable | Index | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Tax payment convenience | 5.24 | 1.305 |
| Foreign exchange write-off business | 4.82 | 1.248 | |
| Convenience of export and import | 4.88 | 1.196 | |
| Future convenience of export and import | 5.25 | 1.267 | |
| Bankruptcy convenience | 4.52 | 1.274 | |
| IP registration and transfer convenience | 4.66 | 1.192 | |
| Entry convenience | 4.92 | 1.496 | |
| E-commerce pilot zone policy | 5.06 | 1.214 | |
|
| IPR protection | 4.8 | 1.294 |
| Investor protection | 4.97 | 1.288 | |
| Judicial procedure quality | 4.87 | 1.242 | |
| Land management quality | 4.75 | 1.313 | |
| Social credit system | 5.12 | 1.242 | |
|
| Financial products | 4.87 | 1.319 |
| Bank credit line | 4.86 | 1.309 | |
| Interest rate | 4.61 | 1.321 | |
| Credit guarantee agency | 4.86 | 1.304 | |
|
| Registration cost | 4.28 | 1.549 |
| Registration time | 4.64 | 1.571 | |
|
| Income tax burden | 4.59 | 1.255 |
| Value added tax burden | 4.16 | 1.402 | |
| Social security premium burden | 4.12 | 1.472 | |
| Time for export and import | 4.31 | 1.399 | |
| Expected future time of export and import | 3.49 | 1.295 | |
| Contract enforcement cost | 4.49 | 1.323 | |
| Legal costs of dispute resolution | 4.41 | 1.257 | |
| Business bankruptcy cost | 4.41 | 1.284 | |
| IPR registration cost | 4.11 | 1.347 | |
|
| The number of qualified talents | 4.81 | 1.306 |
|
| B2B service | 5.17 | 1.25 |
| Entrepreneurship supporting facility | 5.09 | 1.22 | |
|
| Social credit system | 5.12 | 1.24 |
|
| City Brain | 5.16 | 1.298 |
|
| Business confidence | 5.31 | 1.301 |
Note: IP: Intellectual property; IPR: IP rights.
Data source: Authors’ survey.
Factor analysis results.
|
|
|
|
| Export and import procedure | 0.785 | |
| Tax payment | 0.76 | |
| Foreign exchange write-off business | 0.759 | |
| IP registration and transfer | 0.702 | |
| E-commerce pilot zone policy | 0.657 | |
| Business registration | 0.624 | |
| Business exit | 0.617 | |
| Cumulative percentage | 49.48% | |
|
|
|
|
| Investor protection | 0.833 | |
| Land management quality | 0.825 | |
| Legal procedure quality | 0.824 | |
| IP protection | 0.707 | |
| Cumulative percentage | 72.334 | |
|
|
|
|
| Land management quality | 0.888 | |
| Legal procedure quality | 0.888 | |
| Cumulative percentage | 78.896 | |
|
|
|
|
| Protection for investors | 0.85 | |
| IP protection | 0.85 | |
| Cumulative percentage | 72.334 | |
|
|
|
|
| Credit line supplied by banks | 0.838 | |
| Financial products of banks | 0.828 | |
| Credit guarantee agency | 0.779 | |
| Interest rate of banks | 0.764 | |
| Cumulative percentage | 64.495 | |
|
|
|
|
| Business registration time | 0.882 | |
| Business registration cost | 0.882 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Legal dispute resolution | 0.742 | |
| Contract enforcement compliance | 0.723 | |
| Social security | 0.713 | |
| Value added tax | 0.704 | |
| Bankruptcy | 0.704 | |
| Income tax | 0.658 | |
| Export and import time | 0.653 | |
| IP registration | 0.48 | |
| Cumulative percentage | 45.794 | |
|
|
|
|
| B2B service | 0.881 | |
| Entrepreneurship supporting facility | 0.881 | |
| Cumulative percentage | 77.588 |
Note: IP: Intellectual property.
Data sources: Principal factor analysis and the authors’ survey.
Estimation results of model (1).
| Independent variable: | Overall | Overall | Private company | Foreign company | State-owned | Low-tech company | Middle-tech company | High-tech company |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.119 | 0.1808 | 0.2250 | 0.337 | ||||
|
| 0.354 | 0.4466 | 0.5770 | 0.325 | 0.645 | 0.429 | ||
|
| 0.095 | 0.1161 | 0.1210 | 0.769 | 0.201 | |||
|
| 0.161 | 0.1775 | 0.563 | 0.5490 | 0.317 | |||
|
| -0.050 | -0.709 | ||||||
|
| 0.122 | 0.5290 | 0.252 | 0.291 | ||||
|
| -0.010 | |||||||
|
| 0.189 | |||||||
|
| 4.254 | 3.7782 | 3.4810 | 1.7200 | 5.2840 | 2.4030 | 5.290 | 5.423 |
|
| 0.391 | 0.3865 | 0.4470 | 0.4980 | 0.3450 | 0.381 | 0.386 | 0.401 |
Note
** means the coefficients are significant at 0.05.
* means the coefficients are significant at 0.10.
Estimation results of model (4).
| Independent variable investment | Overall | Private company | Foreign company | State-owned | Low-tech company | Middle-tech company | High-tech company |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.880 | 3.755 | 3.081 | 4.178 | 3.324 | 3.980 | 4.301 |
|
| 0.2479 | 0.2860 | 0.3620 | 0.1810 | 0.389 | 0.212 | 0.168 |
|
| 0.2015 | 0.1550 | 0.4100 | 0.224 | 0.263 | ||
|
| 0.2603 | 0.3210 | 0.424 | 0.170 | 0.385 | ||
|
| 0.1966 | 0.219 | 0.1990 | 0.162 | 0.305 | 0.186 | 0.164 |
Note: Except for business confidence of high-tech enterprises and operating cost of low-tech enterprises, all coefficients are significant at 0.05.
Estimation results of model (3).
| Independent variable: | Overall | Overall | Private company | Foreign company | State-owned | Low-tech company | Middle-tech company | High-tech company |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.107* | 0.1180 | 0.1274 | 0.318 | 0.342 | 0.475 | ||
|
| 0.331 | 0.2719 | 0.2641 | 0.4332 | ||||
|
| 0.070 | 0.280 | ||||||
|
| -0.108 | 0.359 | ||||||
|
| -0.102 | 0.255 | ||||||
|
| -0.133* | 0.1995 | 0.2665 | 0.310 | ||||
|
| -0.082 | |||||||
|
| 0.068 | |||||||
|
| -0.515 | 0.6095 | 0.6487 | 0.2539 | 0.0620 | 1.481 | 0.033 | 0.046 |
|
| 0.084 | 0.0739 | 0.0620 | 0.0000 | 0.1970 | 0.143 | 0.065 | 0.074 |
Note
** means the coefficients are significant at 0.05.
Error estimation of path analysis.
| R2 | SE = | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.158 | 0.918, |
|
| 0.189 | 0.926 |
|
| 0.142 | 0.925 |
|
| 0.091 | 0.953, |
|
| 0.462, | 0.733 |
|
| 0.380 | 0.787 |
|
| 0.220, | 0.883 |
Direct and indirect effects.
| Influencing Path | Influencing effects | |
|---|---|---|
|
| City Brain → investment | 0.212 |
|
| City Brain → Public administration → Cost → investment | 0.401×0.329×0.214 = 0.028 |
|
| City Brain → Public administration → Business confidence → investment | 0.401×0.306×0.209 = 0.026 |
|
| City Brain → Legal environment → Cost → investment | 0.438×0.198×0.214 = 0.021 |
|
| City Brain → Financing constraint → Cost → investment | 0.381×0.241×0.214 = 0.019 |
|
| City Brain → Financing constraint → Business confidence → investment | 0.381×0.150×0.209 = 0.012 |
|
| City Brain → Social credit system → Business confidence → investment | 0.306×0.128×0.209 = 0.003 |
|
| City Brain → Business confidence → investment | 0.201×0.209 = 0.042 |
|
| 0.212+0.028+0.026+0.021+0.019+0.012+0.003+0.042 | 0.363 |
Path coefficient resolution.
| Causal variable | Outcome variables | Direct influence | Indirect influence | Total influence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public administration | 0.402 | 0.402 | ||
| Legal environment | 0.438 | 0.438 | ||
| Financing constraint | 0.381 | 0.381 | ||
| Social credit system | 0.306 | 0.306 | ||
| Institutional costs | 0.311 | 0.311 | ||
| Business confidence | 0.201 | 0.219 | 0.420 | |
| Enterprise investment | 0.212 | 0.151 | 0.363 |
Data source: Path analysis and the authors’ survey.
Fig 2Path analysis.
Estimation results of model (2).
| Independent variable: | Overall | Overall | Private company | Foreign company | State-owned | Low-tech company | Middle-tech company | High-tech company |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| -0.108 | 0.1024 | 0.0810 | 0.2220 | 0.104 | |||
|
| 0.278 | 0.2828 | 0.2460 | 0.7240 | 0.333 | 0.251 | ||
|
| -0.04 | 0.1920 | ||||||
|
| 0.285 | 0.2687 | 0.3200 | 0.4540 | 0.213 | 0.295 | 0.356 | |
|
| 0.137 | 0.1307 | 0.5450** | 0.355 | ||||
|
| 0.184 | 0.1753 | 0.2660 | 0.280 | 0.211 | |||
|
| 0.005 | |||||||
|
| 0.020 | |||||||
|
| 0.741 | 0.5290 | 0.3500 | 0.2110** | 2.1950 | 0.102 | 0.102 | 0.510 |
|
| 0.463 | 0.4671 | 0.4660 | 0.6380 | 0.5270 | 0.542 | 0.380 | 0.371 |
Note
** means the coefficients are significant at 0.05
* means the coefficients are significant at 0.10.