This paper investigates the relationship between industrial diversification and firm valuation in a sample of 816 publicly listed firms in China. It contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it is one of the first studies of diversification and firm value in an emerging market dominated by partially privatized firms. Second, it explores the determinants of corporate diversification by considering some unique aspects of the agency and political conflicts inherent in China's transition toward a market economy. Third, it employs a number of empirical methodologies (instrumental variables estimation, the Heckman self-selection model, and propensity score matching) to examine the relationship between diversification and firm value. The paper finds that when the decision to diversify is modeled as an endogenous choice based on firm characteristics, multi-segment firms have significantly higher Tobin's q than single-segment firms, even after controlling for factors such as ownership structure, ownership concentration, and growth opportunities. In addition, government-controlled multi-segment firms have lower Tobin's q than non-government-controlled multi-segment firms, providing evidence in support of the political cost hypothesis of diversification. Moreover, non-government-controlled firms in growth industries that perform better are more likely to diversify. Overall, our results illustrate that the valuation effect of diversification depends on government control.

This study examines the relations between leverage and investment in China's listed firms, where corporate debt is principally provided by state-owned banks. We obtain three major findings. First, there is a negative relation between leverage and investment. Second, the negative relation between leverage and investment is weaker in firms with low growth opportunities and poor operating performance than in firms with high growth opportunities and good operating performance. Third, the negative relation between leverage and investment is weaker in firms with a higher level of state shareholding than in firms with a lower level of state shareholding. Overall, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the state-owned banks in China impose fewer restrictions on the capital expenditures of low growth and poorly performing firms and also firms with greater state ownership. This creates an overinvestment bias in these firms.