4.1 Regression Benchmarking
The method of least squares was first utilized to examine the effects of population aging on urban innovation without addressing endogenous variables. All four models controlled for time fixed effects and city fixed effects, and were found to be reasonable through F-tests. The adjusted R-squared values for all four models were above 0.65, indicating that the explanatory power of the models was over 65%.
Column (1) solely addresses the relationship between population aging at 60 years and above and urban innovation. The results indicate that population aging has a significant negative effect on urban innovation at the 1% level, suggesting a pronounced detrimental effect of population aging on urban innovation. Specifically, for every 1% increase in population aging, the urban innovation index is projected to decrease by 2.2%, thereby verifying hypothesis 1. In columns (2)-(4), upon incrementally introducing different control variables, the significance levels improve consistently through 1% significance tests. Notably, the coefficient of population aging remains relatively stable, indicating the consistent hindering effect of population aging on urban innovation.
From other control variables, column (2) mainly examines the effects of urban innovation from a macroeconomic perspective by considering the country’s fiscal situation and industrial structure; column (3) explores the effect of social structures such as population density and the number of library books per 10,000 people on urban innovation; and column (4) includes factors such as the number of university students enrolled, the number of hospital beds, wages, and other indicators related to labor quality to analyze the effects of population quality on urban innovation. Based on the estimated results of the model, there are three aspects of analysis.
From a macroeconomic viewpoint, the governmental fiscal balance exhibits a positive relationship with urban innovation, signifying that higher fiscal expenditure is conducive to the advancement of urban innovation. Nonetheless, the coefficient of the fiscal balance ratio ranges merely from 0.018–0.022%, indicating a relatively modest promoting effect of fiscal balance on urban innovation. There exists a notable correlation between the proportions of the secondary and tertiary industries and urban innovation. The concentration of labor-intensive manufacturing activities constrains the realization of urban innovation potential, as evidenced by a 1% increase in the secondary industry proportion correlating with a decline of 0.8–1.1% in the innovation index. However, upon the incorporation of a labor quality indicator in Column (4), the coefficient associated with this relationship experiences a decrease in significance. This could potentially be attributed to the fact that an enhancement in labor quality heightens selectivity in employment, resulting in a reduction in the number of laborers engaged in the secondary industry. The obstruction posed by the secondary industry on innovation is mitigated through the enhancement of labor quality. Conversely, for every 1% increase in the proportion of the tertiary industry, the innovation index is projected to increase by 0.5%. While the driving force of the tertiary industry may be relatively weaker compared to the constraints of the secondary industry, the inclusion of the labor quality variable leads to a substantial increment in the coefficient and significance associated with the tertiary industry. The augmentation of labor quality bolsters the positive effect of the tertiary industry on urban innovation.
From a perspective of social structure, the number of library books per 10,000 individuals and population density demonstrate significant correlations with urban innovation, both with a positive effect. In Column (3), the correlation between the number of library books per 10,000 individuals and urban innovation is confirmed through a 5% significance test, with a coefficient of 0.051. Upon the inclusion of the labor quality variable in Column (4), this relationship passes a 1% significance test, resulting in a slight increase in the coefficient to 0.058. Furthermore, the significance of the relationship between population density and urban innovation is also confirmed through a 1% significance test. For every 1% increase in population density, the effect on innovation escalates by 0.395%. Upon the incorporation of the quality of the population variable, the estimated coefficient rises to 0.529%. Hence, it is evident that mere urban population growth does not exert a significant effect on urban innovation. The primary driving force behind innovation stems from the aggregation of highly skilled individuals within urban areas.
From the perspective of the quality of population index, in Column (4), both average wages and the number of university students enrolled show significant correlations with urban innovation. The correlation between average wages and urban innovation is negative; a 1% increase in average wages leads to a decrease of 0.085% in urban innovation, contrary to the expected hypothesis. One possible reason for this is that, although according to the Petty-Clark theorem, an increase in income would lead workers to shift towards higher-level industries, the current situation in China still sees over half of the labor force employed in primary and secondary industries. According to statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of employment in the primary industry was 27.70% in 2016, the secondary industry was 28.80%, and the tertiary industry accounted for 43.50%. Despite the increase in labor wages, a significant portion of workers remain concentrated in non-innovation-intensive industries, hampering the development of urban innovation. On the other hand, the number of university students enrolled shows a significant negative correlation with urban innovation at a 1% level of significance. When per capita consumption increases by 1%, the urban innovation index decreases by 11.5%, which deviates from the expected hypothesis. This may be because university students are in the stage of knowledge accumulation and are not yet active labor and innovation practitioners, but rather serve as potential labor and innovation backup forces. A higher number of university students in a region implies a larger population of delayed job seekers who have not yet entered the labor force, thus leading to a relatively smaller labor force in the region. However, these individuals represent high-quality human resources for the future job market and are also the backbone of future technological innovation, playing a crucial role in future innovative activities. The number of hospital beds per capita in urban areas and per capita consumption shows no significant correlation with urban innovation. However, the coefficients of other variables remain unchanged, and there is an increase in the r-squared value of the model, indicating an enhancement in the explanatory power of the model. As control variables were gradually introduced from Step (1) to Step (4), the relationship and significance of population aging with the urban innovation index did not significantly change. This suggests that the negative effect of population aging on urban innovation is robust and that population aging has an unfavorable effect on urban innovation.
Table 3
Explanatory variable
|
Explained variable: inn
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
age60
|
-0.022***
|
-0.017***
|
-0.016***
|
-0.017***
|
|
(0.007)
|
(0.006)
|
(0.006)
|
(0.006)
|
selffin
|
|
0.022**
|
0.021***
|
0.018**
|
|
|
(0.008)
|
(0.008)
|
(0.007)
|
second
|
|
-0.011***
|
-0.010***
|
-0.008**
|
|
|
(0.004)
|
(0.004)
|
(0.003)
|
third
|
|
0.005*
|
0.006*
|
0.007***
|
|
|
(0.003)
|
(0.003)
|
(0.003)
|
lib
|
|
|
0.051**
|
0.058***
|
|
|
|
(0.021)
|
(0.021)
|
popren
|
|
|
0.529***
|
0.395***
|
|
|
|
(0.135)
|
(0.132)
|
wage
|
|
|
|
-0.085*
|
|
|
|
|
(0.045)
|
stu
|
|
|
|
-0.115***
|
|
|
|
|
(0.023)
|
med
|
|
|
|
-0.058
|
|
|
|
|
(0.047)
|
psum
|
|
|
|
0.001
|
|
|
|
|
(0.032)
|
_cons
|
0.675***
|
0.937***
|
-6.627***
|
-3.311
|
|
(0.076)
|
(0.289)
|
(1.931)
|
(2.121)
|
N
|
2510
|
2510
|
2510
|
2510
|
Time fixed
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
City fixed
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Adj_R2
|
0.652
|
0.682
|
0.694
|
0.708
|
F
|
96.914
|
73.160
|
64.515
|
56.332
|
Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses, “*”, “**”, and “***” represent significance levels at 10%, 5%, 1%, respectively. |
4.2 Robustness Testing
In this section, we use the proportion of the population aged 65 and above (age65) instead of the proportion of the population aged 60 and above (age60) for robustness testing. The study found that under the population aging standard of 65 years old, population aging still has a significant negative effect on innovation activities. In all four models in Table 4, the coefficient of population aging passed the significance test at the level of 1% or higher. In column (1), when considering only population aging as an indicator, a 1% increase in population aging led to a 3.3% decrease in the urban innovation index compared to the benchmarking model, with an increase of 1.1% in the value. Furthermore, after gradually adding control variables, the coefficients were all higher than those in the benchmarking model, indicating that as the proportion of the population aged 65 and above increased by one percentage point, the problem of population aging became more serious, resulting in a greater negative effect on innovation. In column (2), after adding three macroeconomic indicators as control variables, the regression results slightly improved compared to the benchmarking model, showing that government fiscal expenditure and the transformation of industrial structure play a positive role in promoting urban innovation. Similarly, in column (3), after adding social structure variables, the estimation results remained consistent with Table 2, with no change in significance level and a slight increase in the coefficient of the interaction term. Finally, in column (4), after adding all control variables, the estimation results remained highly robust, with the basic estimation results of the benchmarking model unchanged. It can be confirmed that the estimation results of the above variables all passed the robustness test.
Table 4
Explanatory variable
|
Explained variable: inn
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
age65
|
-0.033***
|
-0.026***
|
-0.025***
|
-0.025***
|
|
(0.008)
|
(0.007)
|
(0.007)
|
(0.007)
|
selffin
|
|
0.022***
|
0.021***
|
0.018**
|
|
|
(0.008)
|
(0.008)
|
(0.007)
|
second
|
|
-0.011***
|
-0.010***
|
-0.008**
|
|
|
(0.004)
|
(0.004)
|
(0.003)
|
third
|
|
0.006*
|
0.006**
|
0.008***
|
|
|
(0.003)
|
(0.003)
|
(0.003)
|
lib
|
|
|
0.051**
|
0.058***
|
|
|
|
(0.021)
|
(0.021)
|
popren
|
|
|
0.532***
|
0.402***
|
|
|
|
(0.136)
|
(0.133)
|
wage
|
|
|
|
-0.084*
|
|
|
|
|
(0.045)
|
stu
|
|
|
|
-0.114***
|
|
|
|
|
(0.023)
|
med
|
|
|
|
-0.055
|
|
|
|
|
(0.048)
|
psum
|
|
|
|
0.001
|
|
|
|
|
(0.032)
|
_cons
|
0.676***
|
0.910***
|
-6.702***
|
-3.449
|
|
(0.059)
|
(0.285)
|
(1.951)
|
(2.142)
|
N
|
2510
|
2510
|
2510
|
2510
|
Time fixed
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
City fixed
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
R2
|
0.653
|
0.683
|
0.694
|
0.708
|
F
|
96.984
|
73.054
|
64.560
|
56.305
|
Note: The values in parentheses represent the robust standard errors. “*”, “**”, and “***” denote significance levels of 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. |
4.3 GMM Estimation
Both regression benchmarking and robustness testing are conducted without considering the issue of endogeneity. However, there exists a reciprocal causal relationship between innovation and population aging. Therefore, the aforementioned study merely establishes the correlation between population aging and innovation, without being able to establish a causal link between the two. Furthermore, innovation activities exhibit continuity, with current innovation activities being influenced by past innovation outcomes. Hence, it is essential to introduce lagged variables and transform the benchmarking model into a dynamic model. The model is set up as follows:
$$in{n_{it}}=\alpha +\sum\nolimits_{{n=1}}^{n} {{\lambda _n}in{n_{it - n}}} +\beta ag{e_{it}}+\gamma Z+{\mu _i}+{\nu _t}+{\xi _{it}}$$
2
where \(in{n_{it - n}}\) represents n lagged periods of innovation. In dynamic panel models, the estimation method typically involves the use of GMM. The advantage of this method lies in its capability to address the endogeneity problem of both lagged variables and core explanatory variables. Therefore, employing GMM enables the estimation of the causal relationship between population aging and innovation.
Table 5 shows the estimation results of GMM, with all four models controlling for one lagged period of the innovation index, as well as time and region fixed effects. According to the examination of AR(1) and AR(1) tests, it is observed that there is first-order serial correlation but no second-order serial correlation present. The non-significance of the Hansen test indicates the reliability of the GMM estimation results. Among the four models, the one lagged period of innovation significantly influences current innovation positively. In column (1), without the inclusion of control variables, population aging exhibits a significant negative effect on urban innovation. For every 1% increase in the proportion of the population aged 60 and above, the urban innovation index decreases by 1%. Upon the introduction of control variables in column (2), the significance is confirmed through a 1% level of significance test, with the urban innovation index decreasing by only 0.4%. In columns (3) and (4), where the proportion of the population aged 65 is used as an explanatory variable, population aging has a significant negative effect on urban innovation without control variables, with a coefficient of -0.013. This indicates that a 1% increase in the proportion of the population aged 65 leads to a 1.3% decrease in the urban innovation index, slightly higher than the standard of 60 years of age for population aging. However, upon adding all control variables, the significance between the two variables significantly increases and passes the 1% level of significance. The coefficient slightly decreases to 0.5%. Overall, while controlling for fixed time and urban factors, the inclusion of lagged variables leads to changes in the significance and effect of population aging on urban innovation under different conditions. Nonetheless, the obstructive effect of population aging on urban innovation persists.
Table 5
The results of the SYS-GMM estimation.
Explanatory variables
|
Explained variable: inn
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
L.inn
|
1.078***
|
1.021***
|
1.079***
|
1.022***
|
|
(0.009)
|
(0.020)
|
(0.009)
|
(0.020)
|
age60
|
-0.010*
|
-0.004***
|
|
|
|
(0.005)
|
(0.001)
|
|
|
age65
|
|
|
-0.013*
|
-0.005***
|
|
|
|
(0.007)
|
(0.001)
|
constant term
|
|
-0.649**
|
|
-0.624**
|
|
|
(0.304)
|
|
(0.305)
|
N
|
2259
|
2259
|
2259
|
2259
|
Control variable
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
Y
|
Time fixed
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
City fixed
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Wald chi2
|
126596.25
|
66585.92
|
137355.67
|
66426.92
|
AR(1) P-value
|
0.001
|
0.000
|
0.082
|
0.007
|
AR(1) P-value
|
0.874
|
0.142
|
0.965
|
0.139
|
Hansen P-value
|
0.245
|
0.190
|
0.809
|
0.202
|
Note: Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. “*”, “**”, and “***” denote statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. |