STAR Market Listing, Technological Positioning, and High-Quality Corporate Innovation

GAO Yu; SUN Yannan; ZHAO Xiaoyang

Volume 41 Issue 1

Jan. 2026

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of Guangdong University of Finance & Economics > 2026 > 41(1): 33-49

GAO Yu, SUN Yannan, ZHAO Xiaoyang. STAR Market Listing, Technological Positioning, and High-Quality Corporate Innovation[J]. Journal of Guangdong University of Finance & Economics, 2026, 41(1): 33-49.

Citation:

GAO Yu, SUN Yannan, ZHAO Xiaoyang. STAR Market Listing, Technological Positioning, and High-Quality Corporate Innovation[J]. Journal of Guangdong University of Finance & Economics, 2026, 41(1): 33-49.

Citation:

PDF( 1929 KB)

STAR Market Listing, Technological Positioning, and High-Quality Corporate Innovation

School of Economics and Finance, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, China

Received Date: 2025-10-11
Available Online: 2026-03-23
Publish Date: 2026-01-28

Abstract

Abstract

As a key institutional innovation platform in the reform of the registration-based IPO system, the STAR Market (Science and Technology Innovation Board) is aimed to address the issue of "innovation stagnation" under the traditional IPO framework through the design focused on "hard technology" positioning and enhanced information disclosure. Based on micro-level data of Chinese firms listed on the STAR Market from 2017 to 2022, this paper employs a difference-in-differences model to evaluate the impact of STAR Market listing on firms' high-quality innovation. The findings show that firms do not experience an expected leap in innovation quality immediately after listing, while they reduce high-risk, long-term exploratory R & D and shift toward more easily achievable strategic innovation. Mechanism analysis indicates that the STAR Market's institutional arrangements influence firms' innovation decisions mainly through two channels: post-listing market valuation pressures compelling firms to reallocate R & D resources, and stricter information disclosure requirements altering management's risk-taking willingness. Heterogeneity tests reveal that increased information transparency strengthens knowledge spillovers within industries, which benefits technology-following firms in improving innovation performance, however, for technology-leading firms at the frontier, higher disclosure costs and risks of core technology leakage suppress their high-quality innovation. Dynamic analysis uncovers that these negative effects are concentrated mainly in the early post-listing period and ease as firms gradually adjust their strategies. This study enriches empirical evidence at the micro-level regarding the relationship between information disclosure systems and corporate innovation behavior under the registration-based reform, and provides targeted policy implications for more effectively incentivizing high-quality technological innovation while promoting capital market transparency.
- high-quality innovation,
- strategic innovation,
- technological potential,
- STAR Market

FullText(HTML)

References(40)

References

[1]	KIM S B, WEISBACH M S. Motivations for public equity offers: an international perspective[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2008, 87(2): 281-307. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.09.010
[2]	BERNSTEIN S. Does going public affect innovation?[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2015, 70(4): 1365-1403. doi: 10.1111/jofi.12275
[3]	WIES S, MOORMAN C. Going public: how stock market listing changes firm innovation behavior[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2015, 52(5): 694-709. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0289
[4]	WIES S, MOORMAN C, CHANDY R. Innovation imprinting: why some firms beat the post-IPO innovation slump[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2023, 87(2): 232-252. doi: 10.1177/00222429221114317
[5]	LARRAIN B, PHILLIPS G M, SERTSIOS G, et al. The effects of going public on firm profitability and strategy[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2025, 38(8): 2467-2514. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhaf026
[6]	CAPPELLI R, CORSINO M, LAURSEN K, et al. Technological competition and patent strategy: protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate[J]. Research Policy, 2023, 52(6): 104785. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104785
[7]	MYERS S C, MAJLUF N S. Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1984, 13(2): 187-221. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0
[8]	BENA J, FERREIRA M A, MATOS P, et al. Are foreign investors locusts? the long-term effects of foreign institutional ownership[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2017, 126(1): 122-146. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.07.005
[9]	JENSEN M C, MECKLING W H. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3(4): 305-360. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
[10]	方先明, 孟可俊. 科创板提升了科技型企业创新能力吗?[J]. 人文杂志, 2024(8): 74-86.
[11]	杨圣豪, 蒋仁爱, 沈悦. 科创板开通对企业融资与科技创新效率的影响研究[J]. 软科学, 2023(2): 45-52.
[12]	LERNER J, SORENSEN M, STRÖMBERG P. Private equity and long-run investment: the case of innovation[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2011, 66(2): 445-477. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01639.x
[13]	LINS K V, STRICKLAND D, ZENNER M. Do non-US firms issue equity on US stock exchanges to relax capital constraints?[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2005, 40(1): 109-133. doi: 10.1017/S0022109000001769
[14]	RAJAN R G. Presidential address: the future of the financial system[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2012, 67(2): 401-424.
[15]	张宗新, 滕俊樑. 注册制询价改革能否提高IPO定价效率?——基于科创板试点注册制改革的研究视角[J]. 上海金融, 2020(8): 3-17.
[16]	ACHARYA V V, XU Z. Financial dependence and innovation: the case of public versus private firms[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2017, 124(2): 223-243. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.02.010
[17]	WU G A. The effect of going public on innovative productivity and exploratory search[J]. Organization Science, 2012, 23(4): 928-950. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0676
[18]	FERREIRA D, MANSO G, SILVA A C. Incentives to innovate and the decision to go public or private[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2014, 27(1): 256-300. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhs070
[19]	薛爽, 王禹. 科创板IPO审核问询回复函与首发抑价[J]. 管理世界, 2022(4): 159-177.
[20]	LIU Q, WANG J, CHI W. The spillover effects of innovation content disclosure in MD&A[J]. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2022, 76: 101879. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101879
[21]	AGHION P, BLOOM N, BLUNDELL R. Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005, 120(2): 701-728.
[22]	LAUGA A, LUBOJEMSKI A, ZYLBERSZTEJN A. Knowledge spillovers, absorptive capacity, and innovation in latecomer firms: evidence from patent data[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2024, 49(1): 1-30. doi: 10.1007/s10961-022-09979-1
[23]	HALL B H, JAFFE A, TRAJTENBERG M. Market value and patent citations[J]. RAND Journal of Economics, 2005, 36(1): 16-38.
[24]	ALI-RIND A, BOUBAKER S, JARJIR S L. Peer effects in financial economics: a literature survey[J]. Research in International Business and Finance, 2023, 64: 101873. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101873
[25]	TSENG C Y, WU L Y. Innovation quality in the automobile industry: measurement indicators and performance implications[J]. International Journal of Technology Management, 2007, 37(1-2): 162-177.
[26]	HALL B H, JAFFE A B, TRAJTENBERG M. The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools[R]. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2001.
[27]	张劲帆, 李汉涯, 何晖. 企业上市与企业创新——基于中国企业专利申请的研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017(5): 143-158.
[28]	黎文靖, 郑曼妮. 实质性创新还是策略性创新?——宏观产业政策对微观企业创新的影响[J]. 经济研究, 2016 (4): 60-73.
[29]	BECK T, LEVINE R, LEVKOV A. Big bad banks? the winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2010, 65(5): 1637-1667. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01589.x
[30]	HONORé B E. Trimmed LAD and least squares estimation of truncated and censored regression models with fixed effects[J]. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1992, 60(3): 533-565. doi: 10.2307/2951583
[31]	龙小宁, 张靖. IPO与专利管理: 基于中国企业的实证研究[J]. 经济研究, 2021(8): 115-131.
[32]	TEECE D J, PISANO G, SHUEN A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997, 18(7): 509-533. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
[33]	SUN L, ABRAHAM S. Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2021, 225(2): 175-199. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006
[34]	CALLAWAY B, SANT'ANNA P H C. Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2021, 225(2): 200-230. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001
[35]	LI P, LU Y, WANG J. Does flattening government improve economic performance? evidence from China[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2016, 123: 18-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.07.002
[36]	李云鹤, 黄雨薇, 马圣杰. 上市促进了企业创新吗?——来自创业板制造业企业的经验证据[J]. 南方经济, 2018(7): 59-74.
[37]	PORTER M E. Competitive Strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors[M]. New York: Free Press, 1980.
[38]	LEE K, LIM C. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries[J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(3): 459-483. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00088-3
[39]	HALL B H, LERNER J. The financing of R&D and innovation[M]//Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. North-Holland: Elsevier, 2010: 609-639.
[40]	JAFFE A B. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R & D: evidence from firms' patents, profits, and market value[J]. The American Economic Review, 1986, 76(5): 984-1001.