We examine the impact of government economic policy uncertainty (GEPU) on corporate innovation and identify a cost-of-capital transmission channel. We find that GEPU increases firms’ cost of capital, which translates into lower innovation. As economic policy uncertainty rises, firms with more exposure to such uncertainty face a higher weighted average cost of capital and innovate less. Innovations of financially constrained firms and firms relying on external finance in a competitive environment are affected more. Our study provides novel evidence that higher economic policy uncertainty hinders innovation not only through the traditional investment irreversibility channel, but also through the cost-of-capital channel.

This paper explores pyramidal firms and their motivations for the use of debt financing. We find that pyramids have significantly higher leverage than non-pyramids and that the use of debt in pyramids is associated with the risk of expropriation. We do not find evidence for the control-enhancing, disciplining, tax-reduction, and risk-sharing explanations for the use of debt financing. Our results indicate that the capital structure of pyramids is affected by the expropriation activities of ultimate owners that have excess control rights.

We investigate potential mechanisms through which market-wide sentiment affects firms’ innovation activities. We provide evidence for the financing channel by showing that financially constrained firms are more likely to issue equity and invest more in research and development (R&D) than financially unconstrained firms at high market sentiment. Using time-varying manager sentiment measures, we find suggestive evidence for a sentiment spillover channel whereby market sentiment affects R&D investments through influencing manager sentiment. Furthermore, better patent portfolios are produced from R&D investments stimulated by high market sentiment. Market sentiment has a stronger impact on R&D than the capital expenditures of financially constrained firms.

Understanding the role of bank lending in corporate innovation is important to policymakers, practitioners, and academics. We provide new evidence on such a role by exploiting the implementation of SFAS 166/167, which removed the off‐balance sheet status of certain securitized assets of banks. The regulation affects bank lending and thus represents a credit supply shock to borrowing firms. We find that affected banks raise spreads and cut loan amounts after the regulation. Firms that borrow from affected banks reduce R&D investment and the number and quality of the patents they generate. The reduction is concentrated among firms whose banks experience more downward pressure on capital ratios and greater market discipline, and firms that are more dependent on external financing. Additional analyses reveal that information asymmetry between incumbent banks and outsiders with respect to borrowing firms prevent them from switching. The overall findings suggest that bank lending promotes borrowing firms' innovation activities. Policies that restrict bank lending are likely to hurt innovation of borrowers.

Project finance links financial structure to the operational characteristics of the project to optimize the allocations of various project risks. We develop a model in which concession grants and offtake agreements benefit both public and private sponsors in the presence of political risk. The public can use these contracts to incentivize the private sponsor to undertake an otherwise unacceptable project while benefiting from delegating the process of financing, building, and operating the project to the private sponsor. For the private sponsor, the government concession grant, while improving financial returns, entails political influence. We develop hypotheses connecting these contract choices to the public–private partnership governance structure of project finance and provide supporting evidence. Our findings suggest that a country's political and financial risks have significant impacts on the contract choice as well as the public–private governance structure in project finance. Projects in greater political risk countries tend to be structured with less government involvement in order to avoid political influence of the local government. Projects with the private finance initiative end up with more government involvement and control in order to protect the public interest.

In this paper, we examine the relation between innovation and a firm’s financial dependence using a sample of privately held and publicly traded US firms. We find that public firms in external finance dependent industries spend more on research and development and generate a better patent portfolio than their private counterparts. However, public firms in internal finance dependent industries do not have a better innovation profile than private firms. The results are robust to various empirical strategies that address selection bias. The findings indicate that the influence of public listing on innovation depends on the need for external capital.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.