4.5 Article

How does broadband infrastructure promote entrepreneurship in China: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment

期刊

TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102440

关键词

Entrepreneurship; Broadband China strategy; Staggered difference-in-difference; Quasi-natural experiment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [72163016]
  2. National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science [22ZDA049]
  3. Shanghai University of Finance and Economics graduate student innovation fund [CXJJ-2020-319]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the impact of broadband infrastructure on entrepreneurship in China using the Broadband China strategy as a quasi-natural experiment. The findings suggest that broadband infrastructure significantly enhances entrepreneurial activities, particularly through the mechanisms of human capital agglomeration and financial development. Moreover, the positive effects of broadband infrastructure are more pronounced in eastern cities, high market-oriented cities, and cities with excellent traditional infrastructure.
Using the Broadband China strategy as a quasi-natural experiment, our study attempts to un-derstand how broadband infrastructure (BI) impacts entrepreneurship in China. Employing a staggered difference-in-difference approach, we argue that BI significantly enhances entrepre-neurship, and that this conclusion holds after considering the identification of assumptions and a range of other factors that may interfere with the estimation results. The mechanism exploration reveals that human capital agglomeration and financial development are the main pathways through which BI encourages entrepreneurial activities. Furthermore, the positive effects of BI are bigger in eastern cities, high market-oriented cities, and among cities with excellent traditional infrastructure. Our findings reveal the role of improving BI in facilitating the development of new ventures in China.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据