Evaluation and optimization of business environment based on sustainable development perspective: Exploring the role of the reform of government functions

Abstract

The existing research on the business environment index system has a single viewpoint, which can hardly reflect the requirements of SDGs on the business environment. Few studies have focused on the “front end” factors determining the business environment. Based on panel data from 2011 to 2020, this study measures the business environment in 275 Chinese cities and uses the ArcGIS software and Natural Breaks (Jenks) to examine its spatiotemporal characteristics. The PSM‐DID model is utilized to examine the policy implications of the reform of government functions on the business environment. The findings demonstrate that China's urban business environment's total score has risen, and its geographic characteristics are “strong in the east and weak in the west.” Among the various sub‐dimensions of the business environment, the largest contribution is the infrastructure environment, followed by the rule of law environment. The reform of government functions can improve the business environment from the second year onward. Regional and city‐level heterogeneities exist in the effects of the reform of government functions on the business environment. In addition, informatization level, population density, and consumption level can optimize the business environment. This study provides a guide for accelerating the creation of a marketized, legalized, international, and sustainable business environment.

Can innovative urban design optimize the business environment? Quasi-natural experimental evidence from China

“…This situation implies that implementing innovation-driven policies can help break through the bottleneck of development potential inherent in regional development. Second, the policy effect of ICP policy affecting BE is somewhat more significant in the central and western regions than in the eastern regions with better location conditions, which is similar to the findings of existing studies [ 32 , 41 ]. This result may be because the eastern region is affected by the siphoning effect, the development of the BE level is relatively high, and the economic significance of the ICP policy is relatively weak.…”

“…The primary goal of ICP policy is to create a more suitable technological, governmental, market, and financial environment for the market through the aggregation and allocation of innovative resources. This approach is conducive to optimizing market regulation and service level, lowering the access threshold, enabling market players to enter the market equally according to the law, stimulating market vitality, and reducing the distortion of economic activities [ 32 ]. An indepth study of the internal mechanism of ICP policy shows that technological progress, institutional norms, governmental efficiency, and information flow mechanisms shape a better BE [ 27 , 86 ], effectively integrating the fragmented knowledge of innovation policies affecting BE.…”

“…Furthermore, the system provides a comprehensive evaluation standard for the BE at the city level in China, demonstrating reliability and feasibility. Meanwhile, some specific indicators were selected regarding the indicators of the World Bank’s Doing Business Program survey and related study [ 32 ] ( Table A1 in Appendix). Multiple channels, including the collection of public data, survey data, and web data, were integrated to measure and collect data.…”

“…The third area is social factors. BE is a complex social system, deeply influenced by people’s values, ethics, and lifestyles and the evolution of demographic, cultural, ecological, population, religious, and other conditions [ 32 ]. Relevant studies have extensively explored the social characteristics that affect business activities based on the multiple market players and their interactions, such as government, enterprises, the public, and social organizations.…”

Pollution Transfer under Intergovernmental Competition: Suppression or Opportunity

“…These differences suggest that altering the implementation time affected the coefficients of the DID estimator, and they did not pass the significance test. (2) In this test, in line with the literature [87], the treatment group was randomly divided into three equal parts following a normal distribution, as detailed in Appendix B. The results, as presented in Column (2) in Table 5, remained statistically significant, providing further support for the findings of the study.…”