A New Approach to Rectifying Capital from Real to Virtual: Asymmetry Based on Market Structure

Authors

  • PENG Yizhong Center for Industrial and Business Organization, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian 116025, China
  • MENG Ze Center for Industrial and Business Organization, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian 116025, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20069/yve1sb87

Keywords:

real economy, fictitious economy, shifting from real to fictitious, optimal markup rate, pricing deviation

Abstract

The report from the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China underscores the imperative of prioritizing the real economy for sustained economic development. Emphasizing the need to leverage real economic growth to propel national economic progress, the report recognizes the challenges posed by a constrained space for capital investment and the escalating difficulty of technological advancement amid narrowing international technology differentials. Despite the imperative to optimize capital allocation as a catalyst for high-quality economic development, the prevailing trend sees capital heavily favoring the fictitious economy. This divergence results in a pronounced siphoning effect on the real economy, a phenomenon colloquially referred to in the academic community as capital “shifting from real to fictitious”.

This article delves into the causes and governance of the issue of capital “shifting from real to fictitious”. It focuses on exploring strategies that mitigate or eliminate the investment income gap between the real and fictitious sectors, aiming to eradicate the inherent driving force of capital “shifting from real to fictitious”. This lays a solid foundation for the formulation of policy recommendations in the future.

To operationalize this strategy, the article employs data from the Wind database, “China Statistical Yearbook”, “China Economic Network Statistical Database”, and the “OECD Database”. Using dynamic optimization methods to maximize social welfare, it derives the optimal profit margin calculation formula for each sector. A comparative analysis, spanning 1998 to 2020, examines the quantitative relationship between the optimal and actual profit margins in various departments in China, the United States, Germany, and other countries. The empirical results show that the actual profit margin of real economy products in various countries is generally lower than the optimal profit margin, while the actual profit margin of manufacturing products in China is even lower than that of other countries. The growth of fictitious economy real profit margins in the United States and Germany has not led to a relative (relative to optimal) decline in their real economy real profit margins, while China has experienced a relative decline in real economy profit margins. Joining the WTO is the starting point for China’s capital to shift from real to fictitious.

Diverging from previous literature, this article innovatively measures the strength of the “shifting from real to fictitious” driving force by evaluating the difference between actual and optimal profit rates. Dynamic optimization methods derive formulas for calculating optimal markup rates, providing a nuanced perspective on capital inflow and outflow. The article demonstrates that a significant gap between actual and optimal profit margins signals a strong driving force for capital outflow, offering a more nuanced understanding than previous industry-based assessments. This perspective unveils the intricate capital allocation dynamics across economic sectors, elucidating the disadvantaged position of the real economy and enhancing the precision and efficacy of policy recommendations.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] 杜勇, 张欢, 陈建英. (2017). 金融化对实体企业未来主业发展的影响: 促进还是抑制. 中国工业经济, (12), 113-131.

[2] 彭佳颖, 郑玉航. (2021). 实体企业金融化行为的逆周期效应及“脱实向虚”风险研究. 财经理论与实践, (2), 27-35.

[3] 王琳, 赵登攀, 冯婧. (2020). 经济周期、金融周期动态演变下企业杠杆率探析: 来自中国上市公司的经验证据. 财经理论与实践, (6), 10-17.

[4] Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.

[5] 刘贯春, 张军, 刘媛媛. (2022). 宏观经济环境、风险感知与政策不确定性. 世界经济, (8), 30-56.

[6] 戴静, 杨筝, 刘贯春. (2022). 银行业竞争与企业金融资产配置结构异质性. 管理评论, (1), 69-78.

[7] Evans, L., Quigley, N., & Zhang, J. (2003). Optimal price regulation in a growth model with monopolistic suppliers of intermediate goods. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 36(2), 86-93.

[8] 周方. (1995). 关于“规模收益不变”之假定及生产要素产出弹性系数的测算. 数量经济技术经济研究, (6), 40-50.

[9] 张耿. (2019). 风险态度、时间偏好与经济波动福利效应: 基于离散跨期模型的数值分析. 经济学(季刊), (3), 1011-1034.

[10] 丁志帆. (2016). 经济波动的福利效应: 中外例证. 管理评论, (3), 54-66.

[11] Obstfeld, M. (1994). Evaluating risky consumption paths: The role of intertemporal substitutability. European Economic Review, 38(7), 1471-1486.

[12] Dolmas, J. (1998). Risk preferences and the welfare cost of business cycles. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1(3), 646-676.

[13] Szpiro, G. G. (1986). Relative risk aversion around the world. Economics Letters, 20(6), 19-21.

[14] 游家兴. (2005). 理性定价、选择偏差与消费资本资产定价谜团: 来自中国证券市场的经验证据. 经济科学, (6), 65-72.

[15] Lucas, R. E. (1978). Asset prices in an exchange economy. Econometrica, 46(6), 1429-1445.

[16] 陈彦斌. (2005). 情绪波动和资产价格波动. 经济研究, (3), 36-45.

[17] 陈太明. (2008). 中国经济周期的福利成本差异性研究. 管理世界, (5), 12-29.

[18] 林毅夫, 付才辉, 任晓猛. (2019). 金融创新如何推动高质量发展: 新结构经济学的视角. 金融论坛, (11), 3-13.

[19] 刘畅, 刘冲, 马光荣. (2017). 中小金融机构与中小企业贷款. 经济研究, (8), 65-77.

[20] 黄阳华, 罗仲伟. (2014). 我国劳动密集型中小企业转型升级融资支持研究: 最优金融结构的视角. 经济管理, (11), 1-13.

[21] 李春涛, 闫续文, 宋敏, 等. (2020). 金融科技与企业创新: 新三板上市公司的证据. 中国工业经济, (1), 81-98.

[22] 高宇, 孙雁南, 姚鑫. (2022). 互联网金融创新监管的多阶段博弈规律研究: 基于平台异质性的市场反应分析. 当代经济科学, (3), 41-57.

Downloads

Published

2024-01-19

How to Cite

A New Approach to Rectifying Capital from Real to Virtual: Asymmetry Based on Market Structure. (2024). Modern Economic Science, 46(1), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.20069/yve1sb87

Similar Articles

21-30 of 39

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.