Next Article in Journal
HF-SCA: Hands-Free Strong Customer Authentication Based on a Memory-Guided Attention Mechanisms
Previous Article in Journal
Do You Feel Safe Here? The Role of Psychological Safety in the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Turnover Intention Amid COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Promotion Pressures of Local Leaders and Real Estate Investments: China and Leader Heterogeneity

1
School of Government Audit, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing 211815, China
2
School of Management, Chinese Academy of Housing and Real Estate, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310014, China
3
School of Economics, Changzhou University, Changzhou 213159, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15(8), 341; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15080341
Submission received: 13 July 2022 / Revised: 27 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 July 2022 / Published: 3 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Financial Markets)

Abstract

:
Chinese local officials have strong incentives to stimulate economic growth in the pursuit of promotion. However, the connection between promotion pressure of local officials and investment in the real estate market has not been rigorously explored. By using the panel data of local leaders (municipal party secretaries or mayors) from 2002 to 2010, this paper investigates the correlations between local leaders’ promotion pressures and growth in real estate investments. Empirical results show that local leaders’ promotion pressures are significantly and positively correlated with the growth of the real estate market. Furthermore, the positive effect of promotion pressure on real estate development is significant if the leader is young or born locally, whereas this effect is insignificant if the leader is older or not a native. Our findings provide new evidence on how local leaders may strategically intervene in local economic activities.

1. Introduction

The Chinese government has heavy intervention in the economy within the operational procedures of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cadre appointment system (Yao and Zhang 2015; Chen et al. 2017). Scholars have long argued that local officials have incentives to take opportunistic behaviors to affect local economic activities to satisfy their own self-interests (Nordhaus 1975; Alesina and Roubini 1992). They have also recognized that the devolution of authority from the central to local governments, which is regarded as the decentralization with Chinese characteristics, has played a critical role in stimulating China’s rapid economic growth since the economic reform in 1978 (Cai and Treisman 2006; Xu 2011). The key point for the decentralization with Chinese characteristics is that the promotion of local leaders of China’s provinces and autonomous regions is decided by the central government, largely based on the local economic performance (Bo 1996; Li and Zhou 2005; Huang 2002; Edin 2003; Choi 2012). Specifically, regional gross domestic product (GDP) has been used both as a benchmark for judging local officials’ policy decisions and as a criteria in determining promotions within the Communist Party (Zhang et al. 2017). The unique political institution provides us a good opportunity to test how local officials are motivated to stimulate local economic growth.
The real estate industry is considered the engine of economic growth in China (Wu et al. 2012; Pan et al. 2015). Figure 1 plots the ratio of real estate investment to GDP in China from 1997 to 2015. It shows an upward trend for the ratio of real estate investment to GDP during this period. The ratio increased by more than threefold within less than two decades, from less than 5% in 1997 to nearly 15% in 2015. In 2017, the amount of real estate investment exceeded CNY 10 trillion, accounting for about 13.27% of China’s GDP. We hypothesize that local officials under promotion pressures have strong incentives to stimulate local economic growth through heavy investment in the real estate sector. Investment in the real estate market has long been considered an effective and feasible strategy for local governments to drive economic development in China. The main reason is that urban land in China is owned by the state, and the local government can easily intervene in the real estate market through the control of land supply (Pan et al. 2015). Many studies have documented that local governments have strong incentives to promote the rapid development of the real estate sector and, thus, increases the land revenue (Han and Kung 2015; Wang and Hui 2017). Local regulations on purchase restrictions, banking loans, and urban planning are also available to government intervention in the real estate market (Wu et al. 2012; Han and Kung 2015).
This paper contributes to the growing literature concerning the effect of local government intervention in the real estate market by highlighting the role of local leaders. In recent years, a growing number of social science studies have indicated that the Chinese central government creates a “yardstick competition” among local leaders by promoting or demoting them largely based on economic performance (Bo 1996; Chen et al. 2005, 2017; Li and Zhou 2005; Yao and Zhang 2015; Wu and Chen 2016). The role of promotion pressure on local officials to stimulate economic growth has been extensively examined. However, less attention has been paid to the specific channels where local leaders promote economic development. Using data of local leaders by manually collecting from local yearbooks, municipal official websites, and official websites, we find a significant and positive effect of local leaders’ promotion pressures on investment in real estate. To the best of our knowledge, our study is one of the first to examine the effect of local leaders’ promotion pressures on real estate investments. Furthermore, our findings suggest a heterogeneity effect of the promotion pressures of local leaders on real estate investments across local leaders with different characteristics. We find that the positive effect of promotion pressure on real estate development is significant if the leader is young or born locally, whereas this effect is insignificant if the leader is older or not a native.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the research background and reviews related studies. Section 3 raises the relevant hypotheses. Section 4 describes the data, variables, and research methodology. Section 5 presents the empirical results. Section 6 provides some concluding remarks.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Promotion System of Local Officials in China

The personnel system in China is a two-level structure with the leaders of CCP (politburo and State Council) as the control level, and the bureaucratic officials at various levels as the controlled level (Huang 2002). The double-leader structure underlies each level of public administration body in China; with any certain government body there exists two leaders composed of a one-party secretary who is responsible for strategic affairs and one administration head who addresses daily affairs (Landry 2008). The authoritarian governance of China that is fragmented at the local level leads to a highly decentralized personnel system (Cai and Treisman 2006). Specifically, the local bureaucratic system in China is designed as a four-level hierarchy in accordance with the geographical area of jurisdiction, province, prefecture (municipality), county, and town (See Figure 2)1. Provincial leaders are directly appointed by the CCP’s Central Committee and the State Council, whereas the sub-provincial officials are selected by local governments (Wu and Chen 2016).
Based on the prevailing evaluation system of civil servants in China, published by the CCP Organization Department in 19932, political integrity, competence, diligence, and work achievements are the four criteria where work achievements account for no less than 60% of evaluation scores (Edin 2003).

2.2. Land Finance in Urban China

Land finance refers to the practice that local governments sustain fiscal expenditures by selling use rights of local urban land to private sectors (Pan et al. 2015). In China, all the non-arable lands are state-owned, as is stated in the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China passed at the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 1998. The local governments are entitled to lease the land to firms or individuals for a limited tenure, 70 years for residential housing, 50 years for industrial use, and 40 years for commercial housing (Wu et al. 2012). As a result, local governments own de jure the land in their geographical jurisdictions (Lin and Ho 2005). Since the land-leasing system changed in 2003, local governments have a “nearly monopolistic power” in land allocation (Pan et al. 2015), and they lease the land lots at higher prices than before (Cao et al. 2008). Consequently, some local governments reap “huge windfalls” of revenue from leasing land (Chen and Kung 2016) with a strong incentive to promote the real estate sector to maximize land revenue (Lichtenberg and Ding 2009; Han and Kung 2015; Wang and Hui 2017).
Figure 3 plots the fiscal dependence on the land sale of local governments from 2003 to 2015, which is measured as the ratio of land sale revenue over local fiscal income. Despite the fluctuations, this ratio stays around 50%, indicating considerable dependence of local governments on land sale revenue. Such a phenomenon is widely defined by the literature and news reports as “land finance” (Fu 2015; Wu et al. 2015a; Pan et al. 2015). As is widely argued, land finance is opportunism, similar to undermining financial sustainability and economic stability (Wu et al. 2015b).

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. Fiscal Decentralization, Political Centralization, and Promotion Pressures

Since China’s economic reform in 1978, local governments play an increasingly important role in running local economies due to the institutional central–local arrangements with Chinese characteristics. Earlier literature generally theorizes that Chinese local governments have incentives to promote the local economy due to the devolution from central to local government in terms of governance and a fiscal responsibility system (Qian and Weingast 1997). However, the incentive of the local government was undermined after the central government took away its excessive share of the tax base after the 1994 tax-sharing reform (Xu 2011). The hypothesis of fiscal federalism takes the central government as a firm; thus, this hypothesis does not understand the real function of the central government in the local economy, nor can it interpret the negative effect of fiscal federalism (Xu 2011).
A large body of research suggests that personal career advancement is the main incentive for officials to manage the local economy (Cai and Treisman 2005). In comparison with fiscal incentives, political promotion incentives are more effective due to the direct influence on local officials (Cai and Treisman 2005, 2006). In terms of political promotion and in addition to individual expectations of promotion, the evaluation system of the central government affects local officials’ behaviors (Oates 1999; Weingast 1995). The yardstick competition thesis (Chen et al. 2005; Maskin et al. 2000; Xu 2011) argues that official promotion is a process of hierarchical knocking-out; that is, the winners stay in the contest for the next round, whereas all the losers must withdraw. Consequently, local officials rely on better performance to win the contest, and “competition focused on growth” prevails among local governments of the same level (Bo 1996; Chen et al. 2005; Li and Zhou 2005). Therefore, the decentralization with Chinese characteristic is the combination of economic decentralization and political centralization; the central government transfers economic authority to local governments but attains the right to appoint local leaders. Thus, the central government keeps incentives and constraints effective, whereas local governments, entitled with applicable authority, are responsible for economic growth (Chen et al. 2017). As economic growth is the prime concern of the Chinese state (Xu 2011), a large amount of research has suggested that the absolute or relative growth rate of GDP works as a key criterion when the central government evaluates local officials’ performances (Bo 1996; Edin 2003; Chen et al. 2005, 2017; Landry 2008; Li and Zhou 2005; Persson and Zhuravskaya 2016; Yao and Zhang 2015).
Existing research indicates that investment in real estate plays an indispensable role in official promotions due to its effect on the local economy. Specifically, the investment in real estate, affecting several related industries, has a greater impact on the local economy in the short term. The promotion competition among local officials leads to the problem of land finance (Wu et al. 2015b). In addition to economic growth, investment in real estate brings the local government more revenue related to land and housing. Consequently, local officials might construct infrastructures with this revenue and might gain good reputations for promotions. Accordingly, we propose our first hypothesis.
H1. 
Promotion pressures of local officials have a positive effect on investments in real estate.

3.2. Individual Characteristics of Local Officials and Promotion Pressures

Governance competence and political integrity are the two key criteria of official selection in China (Edin 2003). Although neither of the two is easy to observe in practice (Wu et al. 2012; Yao and Zhang 2015), the former seems comparatively more feasible to measure (Choi 2012; Zeng 2014). Hence, governance competence is a fundamental criterion in official promotion in China. Two approaches are used to measure governance competence: (1) development of the regions where the official has taken office, and (2) individual characteristics and experiences of the official. The second approach is widely used in recent research. For example, previous studies have suggested that age and education of the local officials have negative correlations with economic growth (Chen et al. 2017). Furthermore, municipal data show that older officials have less intention for promotion, which mitigate their incentive to run the local economy.
Officials with rich occupational experiences enjoy advantage in promotion. For one, officials might obtain social capital via occupational experiences. For another, experienced officials are expected to be sufficiently capable to deal with complexity. Evidence shows that cross-province occupational experiences have a significantly positive effect on local growth (Muratova et al. 2018). In fact, governors and provincial party secretaries with occupational experience in other provinces outperform their counterparts assigned from the government in terms of local economy and their individual political position (Wu and Cao 2021; Li et al. 2022). The mobility of officials across different regions, necessary in the yardstick competition, is aimed at selecting the more competent winner through comparison (Yao and Zhang 2015).
In this paper, we focus on the fact that local officials of different ages have distinct pursuits of promotion, which lead to different preferences in estate investment. Young officials tend to be more ambitious in promotion and react positively to the promotion pressures and set more aggressive economic goals. As to the real estate industry, longer development period, as well as higher risk, are involved. Thus, young officials with relatively adequate courage and confidence to bear the risk, are more likely to take actions to stimulate local economic growth by boosting investments in real estate. On the contrary, older officials might be too conservative. Accordingly, we propose the second hypothesis.
H2. 
The effect of promotion pressures on real estate investments is more obvious for young local leaders than older local leaders.
Moreover, the correlation between promotion pressures and real estate investments might differ upon the sources of local leaders. We find that nearly two-thirds of local leaders in our sample take office in their hometown, which is consistent with the previous literature (Hodler and Raschky 2014; Chen et al. 2019). Support from the locals provides preferential environments for the native officials to climb the occupational ladder (Guo et al. 2021). In addition, friendly policies concerning land quotas and credit availability are critical for boosting real estate investment, and the native officials with rich, local social networks and good knowledge of the region are likely to access these resources. Accordingly, we propose the third hypothesis.
H3. 
The effect of promotion pressures on real estate investments is more obvious for native local leaders than non-native local leaders.
In summary, we hypothesize that the promotion pressures of local officials have a significantly positive effect on their intervention in the real estate market. In addition, age and the hometown of the local officials moderate the relationship between promotion pressures and real estate investments. The theoretical framework for promotion pressure and real estate investment is shown in Figure 4.

4. Data, Variables, and Model Specification

4.1. Data

The data used in this paper come from multiple sources. The data of local leaders, including municipal party secretaries and mayors, are manually collected from the local yearbooks, municipal official websites, and official websites, such as Renmin (http://www.people.com.cn, accessed on 1 July 2019) and Xinhua (http://www.xinhuanet.com, accessed on 15 July 2019). Personal characteristics of local leaders, such as name, age, gender, hometown, and occupational experience, are available from these sources (Chen 2015; Opper et al. 2015; Shi et al. 2018). We exclude the samples from the provinces of Tibet, Xinjiang, and Qinghai due to difficulty in data collection. The dataset of local leaders after excluding these provinces includes 279 municipalities from 2002 to 20103. Figure 5 shows the geographic distribution of these municipalities. The data of investments in the real estate market and macroeconomic variables are from the China City Statistical Yearbook, which is the largest and most authoritative statistical database in China. All nominal variables are deflated by the provincial consumer price index.

4.2. Promotion Pressures

Promotion pressures of local leaders are the key variables in this paper, which are measured by the performance of local economies relative to competitive regions (i.e., peer pressure faced by local leaders). We take several steps to construct the variable of promotion pressures of local leaders. First, we construct the variables of budget surplus ratio (Surplus) and employment rate (Employment).
S u r p l u s i , t = R e v e n u e i , t E x p e n d i t u r e i , t R e v e n u e i , t × 100 %
E m p l o y m e n t i , t = E m p l o y e d i , t L a b o r i , t × 100 %
where S u r p l u s i , t is the budget surplus ratio in city i and year t, R e v e n u e i , t   is the amount of budget revenue in city i and year t, E x p e n d i t u r e i , t represents the budget expenditure in city i and year t, E m p l o y m e n t i , t denotes the employment rate in city i and year t, E m p l o y e d i , t   is the amount of employed population in city i and year t, and L a b o r i , t represents the total number in the labor force in city i in year t.
Second, we classify our samples into two categories based on the city administrative levels, sub-provincial and prefecture-level cities4. Samples within the same category are defined as “comparable”. The promotion pressures of local leaders will only come from the economic performances in regions within the comparable region (Fang et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019). Next, we calculate the difference between the value of the budget surplus ratio, the unemployment rate, and the GDP growth rate in each city and their mean values within the comparable region (i.e., in cities within the same category). Specifically, we construct a series of dummy variables (Compare), indicating the relative performances in different dimensions within the comparable region:
C o m p a r e j , i , t = { 1 ,   I n d i c a t o r j , i , t < I n d i c a t o r j , m , t 0 ,   otherwise
where I n d i c a t o r j , i , t is the value of the indicator j. We have three indicators, namely, budget surplus ratio, employment rate, and GDP growth rate. I n d i c a t o r j , m , t represents the mean value of indicator j in the comparable region m. C o m p a r e j , i , t is a dummy variable that is equal to 1 if I n d i c a t o r j , i , t is lower than I n d i c a t o r j , m , t , and 0 otherwise. In other words, C o m p a r e j , i , t takes the value of 1 if local leaders in city i have a worse performance in the jth dimension compared with the average performance within the comparable region, which measures the relative performance.
Third, we construct the index of promotion pressure (pressure) with the following equation:
P r e s s u r e i , t = j C o m p a r e j , i , t 1
where P r e s s u r e i , t represents the promotion pressures of local leaders and is an ordered variable ranging from 0 (lowest promotion pressure) to 3 (highest promotion pressure). To ease the concern on the lagged effect of the promotion pressures of local leaders on their interventions in the local economies, we use the one-year lagged value of the relative performance (Compare).
Table 1 shows the individual characteristics of local leaders. The variable retire is measured as the difference between the mandatory age for retirement and the current age, which represents the years before retirement. The variable Tenure is a dummy variable that equals 1 if the current year is the first year of the leader in office and 0 otherwise. Education is a category variable that captures the educational attainment of the local leader, which includes four categories, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctoral degree, and others. Previous studies have shown that higher educated officials are more likely to set higher goals for local economic development due to their higher confidence or better governance (Li and Zhou 2005). We construct two dummy variables to capture the technical–managerial and economic–financial skills of local leaders (Shambaugh 2001), engineering (equals 1 if the local leader is a qualified engineer and 0 otherwise) and economist (equals 1 if the local leader is a qualified economist and 0 otherwise). We also construct two dummy variables to capture the occupational experiences of local leaders (Opper et al. 2015): committee (equals 1 if the local leader has ever worked in the Communist Youth League Committee and 0 otherwise) and secretary (equals 1 if the local leader has worked as a general secretary, vice general secretary, or director of municipal executive office, and 0 otherwise). Table 1 shows that mayors and municipal party secretaries are quite similar in promotion pressures. The mean value of promotion pressures is 1.48 for mayors and 1.47 for municipal party secretaries. Moreover, mayors and municipal party secretaries do not have considerable differences in most individual characteristics.

4.3. Model Specification

To estimate the effect of local leaders’ promotion pressures on real estate investments, we employ the fixed-effects panel model with the following form:
i n v e s t m e n t i , t = α 0 + α 1 p r e s s u r e i , t + X i , t + y e a r t + c i t y i + ε i , t
where the dependent variable i n v e s t m e n t i , t represents the investment in real estate market in city i and year t, the independent variable p r e s s u r e i , t represents the promotion pressure of the local leader of city i in year t, and   X i , t   represents a vector of the control variables. Specifically, two categories of control variables are incorporated. First is the individual characteristics of local leaders, such as age, education, experience, and tenure, as described in Table 1. The squared terms of retire and tenure are also included to control for the potential nonlinear effects. Second are the local macroeconomic variables, such as GDP per capita, population, and fiscal revenue per capita.   y e a r t   and   c i t y i represent year and city fixed effects, respectively. Finally, ε i , t is the error term.

5. Empirical Findings

5.1. Baseline Results

Table 2 reports the results from the baseline regression (i.e., Equation (1)). The results in Columns (1)–(3) are estimated with separate regressions by using subsamples of mayors, and Columns (4)–(6) use subsamples of municipal party secretaries. Columns (1)–(4) control for promotion pressures, personal characteristics of local leaders, macroeconomic characteristics, and year and city fixed effects. Columns (2)–(5) add macroeconomic variables. Columns (3)–(6) further add two variables that measure the occupational experiences of local leaders. Throughout Columns (1)–(6), we can find a significant and positive coefficient of pressure, which suggests that promotion pressures faced by local leaders are positively associated with investments in the real estate market. Thus, H1 is supported.

5.2. Robustness Checks

We conducted two robustness checks for the main results. First, we redefined the dependent variable as the value invested in real estate per capita, which considers the varying population scale across cities. Second, we excluded the samples in the year of global financial crisis (i.e., 2008), as the real estate market was especially susceptible to the national economy. Column (1) of Table 3 reports the results from the alternative definition of the dependent variable, and Column (1) shows the results from the subsamples by dropping the observations from 2008. The results in Table 3 consistently show that the coefficient of pressure remains positive and statistically significant.

5.3. Further Analyses

Our previous results suggest that local leaders who compete for promotion actively interfere in the real estate market. We now examine the possible heterogeneity effect of promotion pressures among local leaders at different ages and from different regions. First, local leaders at different ages may respond distinctively to promotion pressures in terms of interference in economic activities. To test this hypothesis, we divided the samples into two groups based on the ages of the local leaders, young and older local leaders. Young local leaders are defined as those whose ages are lower than the mean value, and older local leaders are those whose ages are higher than the mean value.
Table 4 reports the results by using subsamples divided by the age of local leaders. The results show that promotion pressures exert a different effect on the real estate investments between young and older local leaders. Specifically, for young mayors or municipal party secretaries, promotion pressures have a significantly positive effect on their interventions in the real estate market. However, the effect of promotion pressures is insignificant for older mayors or municipal party secretaries. These findings provide supportive evidence on H2.
Second, leaders who are born locally and those who are born elsewhere might have different motives and degrees of interventions in economic activities for personal benefits because they have different emotional attachments to the local area and local social capital. To test this hypothesis, we divided the samples into two groups according to the hometowns of the leaders. The leaders who were born locally are classified as “native” and as “non-native” otherwise. In our sample, the majority of local leaders are born locally. Specifically, 1643 of 2054 mayors and 1432 of 1826 municipal party secretaries are native.
Table 5 reports the results by using subsamples divided by the hometowns of the local leaders. We can see that the coefficient of pressure is significant and positive for native leaders (Columns (1) and (3)), whereas it is insignificant for non-native leaders (Columns (2) and (4)). In other words, promotion pressures push native leaders who are born locally to invest more in the real estate market. However, if the leaders are non-native, then promotion pressures do not motivate the leaders who are not born locally to invest heavily in the real estate market. Thus, H3 is supported.

6. Conclusions

Economic decentralization has been considered a key to China’s economic success in the past decades, but local governments have limited political autonomy. The promotions of local leaders are almost completely decided by the central government, and economic growth has been regarded as the most important indicator for evaluating the abilities and performances of local leaders. Consequently, local leaders have strong incentives to stimulate economic growth. The significant and positive effect of real estate investment on economic growth has been well documented in previous studies. The real estate industry has long been regarded as a pillar industry of the national economy in China, and a real estate-led economic growth model is prevalent. This study sheds new light on the determinants of the rapid development of China’s real estate market from the perspective of market intervention by local leaders.
By combining data of local leaders, including municipal party secretaries and mayors, manually collected from the local yearbooks and data of investments in the real estate market and macroeconomic variables, we examine how the promotion pressures of local leaders affect the growth of local real estate markets. Our results show that local leaders’ promotion pressures have a significantly positive effect on the investments in the real estate market. In view of the dominant role of local leaders in the decision-making process of the local government, we further examine the heterogeneity effect of promotion pressures among local leaders with different personal characteristics. We find that the effect of promotion pressures differs across the different ages of the local leaders; the effect is significant and positive for young leaders and insignificant for older leaders. Furthermore, promotion pressures have a significant and positive effect on local real estate development if the leader was born locally. Nevertheless, the effect becomes insignificant if the leader is not a native.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.C., M.H. and Z.Q.; methodology, Z.C.; software, Z.C.; validation, Z.C., M.H. and Z.Q.; formal analysis, Z.C. and Z.Q.; investigation, Z.C. and Z.Q.; resources, Z.C. and Z.Q.; data curation, Z.C. and Z.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.C. and M.H.; writing—review and editing, M.H.; visualization Z.C. and M.H.; supervision, M.H.; funding acquisition, Z.C., M.H. and Z.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72104109 and No. 72104088) and Universities’ Philosophy and Social Science Research Project in Jiangsu Province (No. 2022SJYB1326).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1
The Chinese political hierarchy consists of several levels of local governments, from the central to the township government (Figure 2). Under the central government, there exists provincial level governments (ministries, provinces, centrally administered cities, and ethnic autonomous regions) (He 2006).
2
3
We need to point out that arguments were operated before the COVID-19 pandemic.
4
Sub-provincial city is a special prefecture-level city that is ruled by a province but is administered independently in regard to the economy and law. The mayor of a sub-provincial city is equal in status to a vice-governor of a province. The status is below that of a municipality, which does not belong to any province but is above other, regular prefecture-level cities, which are completely ruled by their provinces.

References

  1. Alesina, Alberto, and Nouriel Roubini. 1992. Political cycles in OECD economies. The Review of Economic Studies 59: 663–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Bo, Zhiyue. 1996. Economic performance and political mobility: Chinese provincial leaders. Journal of Contemporary China 5: 135–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cai, Hongbin, and Daniel Treisman. 2005. Does competition for capital discipline governments? Decentralization, globalization, and public policy. American Economic Review 95: 817–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Cai, Hongbin, and Daniel Treisman. 2006. Did government decentralization cause China’s economic miracle? World Politics 58: 505–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cao, Guangzhong, Changchun Feng, and Ren Tao. 2008. Local “land finance” in China’s urban expansion: Challenges and solutions. China & World Economy 2: 19–30. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, Shuo. 2015. From Governance to Institutionalization: Political Selection from the Perspective of Central-local Relations in China--Past and Present (1368–2010). Fudan University Working Paper. Shanghai: Department of Economics, Fudan University. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, Ting, and J.K.-S. Kung. 2016. Do land revenue windfalls create a political resource curse? Evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics 123: 86–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, Jie, Danglun Luo, Guoman She, and Qianwei Ying. 2017. Incentive or selection? A new investigation of local leaders’ political turnover in China. Social Science Quarterly 98: 341–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, Ye, Hongbin Li, and Li-An Zhou. 2005. Relative performance evaluation and the turnover of provincial leaders in China. Economics Letters 88: 421–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, Yunsen, Jianqiao Huang, Hang Liu, and Weimin Wang. 2019. Regional favoritism and tax avoidance: Evidence from China. Accounting & Finance 58: 1413–43. [Google Scholar]
  11. Choi, Eun Kyong. 2012. Patronage and performance: Factors in the political mobility of provincial leaders in post-Deng China. The China Quarterly 212: 965–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Edin, Maria. 2003. State capacity and local agent control in China: CCP cadre management from a township perspective. The China Quarterly 173: 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fang, Xi, Haiming Liu, and Xianhang Qian. 2018. Political incentives and the effectiveness of monetary policy: Evidence from China’s city commercial banks. Applied Economics Letters 25: 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fu, Qiang. 2015. When fiscal recentralisation meets urban reforms: Prefectural land finance and its association with access to housing in urban China. Urban Studies 52: 1791–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guo, Ping, Guifeng Shi, Gary Gang Tian, and Siqi Duan. 2021. Politicians’ hometown favoritism and corporate investments: The role of social identity. Journal of Banking & Finance 125: 106092. [Google Scholar]
  16. Han, Li, and Jams Kai-Sing Kung. 2015. Fiscal incentives and policy choices of local governments: Evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics 116: 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. He, Canfei. 2006. Regional decentralisation and location of foreign direct investment in China. Post-Communist Economies 18: 33–50. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hodler, Roland, and Paul A. Raschky. 2014. Regional favoritism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129: 995–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huang, Yasheng. 2002. Managing Chinese bureaucrats: An institutional economics perspective. Political Studies 50: 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Landry, Pierre F. 2008. Decentralized Authoritarianism in China. Cambirdge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, Hongbin, and Li-An Zhou. 2005. Political turnover and economic performance: The incentive role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics 89: 1743–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Yue, Xiang Shao, Zhigang Tao, and Hongjie Yuan. 2022. How local leaders matter: Inter-provincial leadership transfers and land transactions in China. Journal of Comparative Economics 50: 196–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lichtenberg, Erik, and Chengri Ding. 2009. Local officials as land developers: Urban spatial expansion in China. Journal of Urban Economics 66: 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lin, George C. S., and Samuel P.S. Ho. 2005. The state, land system, and land development processes in contemporary China. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95: 411–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Maskin, Eric, Yingyi Qian, and Chenggang Xu. 2000. Incentives, information, and organizational form. The Review of Economic Studies 67: 359–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Muratova, Yulia, Jakob Arnoldi, Xin Chen, and Joachim Scholderer. 2018. Political rotations and cross-province firm acquisitions in China. Asian Business & Management 17: 37–58. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nordhaus, William D. 1975. The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies 42: 169–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oates, Wallace E. 1999. An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature 37: 1120–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Opper, Sonjia, Victor Nee, and Stefan Brehm. 2015. Homophily in the career mobility of China’s political elite. Social Science Research 54: 332–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Pan, Jiun-Nan, Jr-Tsung Huang, and Tsun-Feng Chiang. 2015. Empirical study of the local government deficit, land finance and real estate markets in China. China Economic Review 32: 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Persson, Petra, and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya. 2016. The limits of career concerns in federalism: Evidence from China. Journal of the European Economic Association 14: 338–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Qian, Yingyi, and Barry R. Weingast. 1997. Federalism as a commitment to reserving market incentives. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11: 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shambaugh, David. 2001. Facing reality in China policy. Foreign Affairs 80: 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shi, Yaobo, Chun-Ping Chang, Chyi-Lu Jang, and Yu Hao. 2018. Does economic performance affect officials’ turnover? Evidence from municipal government leaders in China. Quality & Quantity 52: 1873–91. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, Li, Lukas Menkhoff, Michael Schröder, and Xian Xu. 2019. Politicians’ promotion incentives and bank risk exposure in China. Journal of Banking & Finance 99: 63–94. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, Yuan, and Eddie Chi-man Hui. 2017. Are local governments maximizing land revenue? Evidence from China. China Economic Review 43: 196–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Weingast, Barry R. 1995. The economic role of political institutions: Market-preserving federalism and economic development. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 11: 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wu, Guiying Laura, Qu Feng, and Pei Li. 2015a. Does local governments’ budget deficit push up housing prices in China? China Economic Review 35: 183–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wu, Jing, Joseph Gyourko, and Yongheng Deng. 2012. Evaluating conditions in major Chinese housing markets. Regional Science and Urban Economics 42: 531–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wu, Mingqin, and Bin Chen. 2016. Assignment of provincial officials based on economic performance: Evidence from China. China Economic Review 38: 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wu, Mingqin, and Xun Cao. 2021. Greening the career incentive structure for local officials in China: Does less pollution increase the chances of promotion for Chinese local leaders. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 107: 102440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wu, Qun, Yongle Li, and Siqi Yan. 2015b. The incentives of China’s urban land finance. Land Use Policy 42: 432–42. [Google Scholar]
  43. Xu, Chenggang. 2011. The fundamental institutions of China’s reforms and development. Journal of Economic Literature 49: 1076–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yao, Yang, and Muyang Zhang. 2015. Subnational leaders and economic growth: Evidence from Chinese cities. Journal of Economic Growth 20: 405–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zeng, Jinghua. 2014. Institutionalization of the authoritarian leadership in China: A power succession system with Chinese characteristics? Contemporary Politics 20: 294–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, Huiming, Lifang Xiong, Yueming Qiu, and Dequn Zhou. 2017. How have political incentives for local officials reduced environmental pollution in resource-depleted cities? Sustainability 9: 1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Ratio of real estate investment to GDP (1997–2015). Data source: China Statistical Yearbook.
Figure 1. Ratio of real estate investment to GDP (1997–2015). Data source: China Statistical Yearbook.
Jrfm 15 00341 g001
Figure 2. The Chinese political hierarchy above the county level.
Figure 2. The Chinese political hierarchy above the county level.
Jrfm 15 00341 g002
Figure 3. Fiscal dependence on land sale (2003–2015). Data source: China Statistical Yearbook, China Land and Resources Statistical Yearbook.
Figure 3. Fiscal dependence on land sale (2003–2015). Data source: China Statistical Yearbook, China Land and Resources Statistical Yearbook.
Jrfm 15 00341 g003
Figure 4. Theoretical framework.
Figure 4. Theoretical framework.
Jrfm 15 00341 g004
Figure 5. Distribution of the sampled municipalities. Note: Darkly shaded regions correspond to municipalities used in our analysis.
Figure 5. Distribution of the sampled municipalities. Note: Darkly shaded regions correspond to municipalities used in our analysis.
Jrfm 15 00341 g005
Table 1. Summary statistics of local leaders.
Table 1. Summary statistics of local leaders.
Individual CharacteristicsMayorsMunicipal Party Secretaries
ObservationsMeanS.D.ObservationsMeanS.D.
Pressure25111.480.8425321.470.85
Retire247710.244.0123828.233.66
Tenure24972.541.4724912.781.62
Education24771.830.7823081.820.72
Engineering23620.100.3121860.070.25
Economist23620.090.2821850.070.26
Committee24320.380.4923500.330.47
Secretary24320.580.4923730.620.49
Data source: China City Statistical Yearbook, local yearbooks, municipal official websites, and official websites.
Table 2. Promotion pressures of local leaders and real estate investments.
Table 2. Promotion pressures of local leaders and real estate investments.
MayorsMunicipal Party Secretaries
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
Pressure0.02 *
(1.88)
0.02 *
(1.80)
0.02 **
(2.05)
0.02 *
(1.87)
0.02 **
(1.97)
0.02 *
(1.83)
Retire−0.09 *
(1.80)
−0.06
(1.09)
−0.06
(1.16)
−0.09 **
(2.14)
−0.09 **
(2.09)
−0.12 **
(2.53)
Tenure0.04 **
(2.31)
0.05 **
(2.48)
0.04 **
(2.38)
0.04 **
(2.30)
0.04 **
(2.28)
0.04 **
(2.30)
Education−0.02
(1.33)
−0.02
(1.39)
−0.02
(1.56)
−0.01
(0.80)
−0.02
(1.39)
−0.02
(1.30)
Engineering −0.06 *
(1.77)
−0.06 *
(1.69)
−0.15 ***
(3.77)
−0.16 ***
(3.87)
Economist 0.02
(0.61)
−0.06 *
(1.69)
0.04
(1.13)
−0.34
(0.85)
Committee 0.05 **
(2.16)
−0.02
(0.81)
Secretary −0.00
(0.19)
0.03
(1.29)
Macroeconomic variables YYYYYY
City fixed effectYYYYYY
Year fixed effectYYYYYY
Adjusted R-squared0.780.780.780.800.800.80
Observations242523392326221621042082
Note: t-values are reported in parentheses. *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.
Table 3. Results of robustness checks.
Table 3. Results of robustness checks.
Value Invested in Real Estate Per CapitaExcluding Observations in 2008
MayorsMunicipal Party SecretariesMayorsMunicipal Party Secretaries
(1)(2)(3)(4)
Pressure0.02 **
(2.05)
0.02 *
(1.83)
0.03 **
(2.20)
0.02 *
(1.73)
Retire−0.06
(1.16)
−0.12 **
(2.53)
−0.06
(0.94)
−0.15 ***
(2.88)
Tenure0.04 **
(2.38)
0.04 **
(2.30)
0.04 **
(2.14)
0.05 ***
(2.80)
Education−0.02
(1.56)
−0.02
(1.30)
−0.03 *
(1.80)
−0.02
(0.89)
Engineering−0.06 *
(1.69)
−0.16 ***
(3.87)
−0.07 *
(1.80)
−0.15 ***
(3.37)
Economist0.03
(0.82)
0.03
(0.85)
0.03
(0.71)
0.04
(0.97)
Committee0.05 **
(2.16)
−0.02
(0.81)
0.05 *
(1.93)
−0.01
(0.56)
Secretary−0.00
(0.19)
0.03
(1.29)
−0.01
(0.37)
0.02
(0.82)
Macroeconomic variablesYYYY
City fixed effectYYYY
Year fixed effectYYYY
Adjusted R-squared0.770.790.780.80
Observations2326208220541826
Note: t-values are reported in parentheses. *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.
Table 4. Promotion pressures of different age group.
Table 4. Promotion pressures of different age group.
MayorsMunicipal Party Secretaries
YoungOldYoungOld
(1)(2)(3)(4)
Pressure0.04 **
(2.36)
0.02
(1.07)
0.03 **
(2.20)
0.03
(1.28)
Tenure0.07 **
(2.22)
0.05 **
(2.04)
0.07 ***
(2.64)
0.02
(0.73)
Education0.01
(0.46)
−0.08 ***
(3.27)
−0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.12)
Engineering−0.06
(1.37)
−0.11
(1.45)
−0.19 ***
(3.40)
−0.10
(1.30)
Economist−0.03
(0.54)
0.04
(0.66)
0.02
(0.30)
0.04
(1.21)
Committee0.07 **
(2.24)
0.03
(0.82)
−0.05 *
(1.68)
0.00
(0.03)
Secretary−0.00
(0.13)
−0.03
(0.85)
−0.05
(1.43)
0.03
(0.72)
Macroeconomic variablesYYYY
City fixed effectYYYY
Year fixed effectYYYY
Adjusted R-squared0.770.790.790.73
Observations132610031238910
Note: t-values are reported in parentheses. *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.
Table 5. Promotion pressures of different hometown groups.
Table 5. Promotion pressures of different hometown groups.
MayorsMunicipal Party Secretaries
NativeNon-NativeNativeNon-Native
(1)(2)(3)(4)
Pressure0.03 ***
(2.60)
0.03
(1.15)
0.03 **
(2.22)
0.00
(0.25)
Retire0.05
(0.86)
0.21
(1.41)
−0.02
(0.39)
0.23 ***
(3.06)
Tenure0.05 ***
(2.57)
−0.00
(0.01)
−0.02
(0.85)
0.11 ***
(4.23)
Education−0.03 *
(1.88)
−0.04
(0.75)
−0.03
(1.30)
0.02
(0.58)
Engineering−0.05
(1.13)
−0.21 **
(2.26)
−0.14 ***
(2.62)
−0.05
(0.56)
Economist−0.03
(0.54)
−0.24 **
(2.46)
0.11 **
(2.00)
0.02
(0.24)
Committee−0.03
(1.31)
0.15 **
(2.40)
0.00
(0.13)
−0.21 ***
(3.95)
Secretary0.00
(0.17)
−0.13 *
(1.87)
0.06 **
(1.99)
−0.05
(1.01)
Macroeconomic variablesYYYY
City fixed effectYYYY
Year fixed effectYYYY
Adjusted R-squared0.810.680.790.79
Observations16436571432630
Note: t-values are reported in parentheses. *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, Z.; Hu, M.; Qiu, Z. Promotion Pressures of Local Leaders and Real Estate Investments: China and Leader Heterogeneity. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15, 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15080341

AMA Style

Chen Z, Hu M, Qiu Z. Promotion Pressures of Local Leaders and Real Estate Investments: China and Leader Heterogeneity. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2022; 15(8):341. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15080341

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Zhuo, Mingzhi Hu, and Zhiyi Qiu. 2022. "Promotion Pressures of Local Leaders and Real Estate Investments: China and Leader Heterogeneity" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15, no. 8: 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15080341

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop