IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p6718-d1450802.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Business–Government Relationships Drive Digital Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Study of 292 Cities in China Using NCA and TDQCA

Author

Listed:
  • Shuigen Hu

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Yilin Cang

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Yulong Jie

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Xianbo Wang

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Lie’en Weng

    (School of Public Administration, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China)

Abstract

Innovation is the driving force for achieving sustainable economic development, and healthy business–government relationships are the foundation and guarantee for promoting the sustainability of digital innovation and entrepreneurship. However, current academic research on the impact of business–government relations on digital innovation and entrepreneurship often neglects the configurational effects of various factors. Therefore, this study constructed an analytical framework from the new dimension of “close” and “clean” business–government relationships, selected 292 Chinese cities as research subjects, and employed the Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) and Time-Differencing Qualitative Comparative Analysis (TDQCA) methods. From a configurational perspective, it explored the relationship between business–government relations and digital innovation and entrepreneurship. The results showed the following: Firstly, the various business–government relationship factors did not have a single linear impact on digital innovation and entrepreneurship, and configuration was more crucial than a single factor. Secondly, based on the integration of research findings and the theoretical framework, five successful configurations were proposed. However, these configurations possess certain adaptability and need to be tailored to local conditions. Thirdly, analyzing the three “non” condition variables in these five configurations, including “clean” business–government relationships, government efficiency, and new infrastructure, also contributed to enhancing the sustainability of digital innovation and entrepreneurship outcomes. Additionally, the study analyzed the implications of these critical configurations for five key stakeholders: government, enterprises, research institutions and academia, policymakers, and the public. Specifically, the government can implement policies tailored to local conditions to promote the sustainable development of digital innovation and entrepreneurship. These policies include increasing investment in digital infrastructure, simplifying approval processes, and enhancing the efficiency of government services.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuigen Hu & Yilin Cang & Yulong Jie & Xianbo Wang & Lie’en Weng, 2024. "How Business–Government Relationships Drive Digital Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Study of 292 Cities in China Using NCA and TDQCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6718-:d:1450802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6718/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6718/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Jack J. Baroudi, 1991. "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Allen, Franklin & Qian, Jun & Qian, Meijun, 2005. "Law, finance, and economic growth in China," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 57-116, July.
    3. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 1999. "The Quality of Government," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 222-279, April.
    4. Satish Nambisan, 2017. "Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(6), pages 1029-1055, November.
    5. Eva Thomann & Martino Maggetti, 2020. "Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(2), pages 356-386, May.
    6. Nambisan, Satish & Wright, Mike & Feldman, Maryann, 2019. "The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    7. Aidis, Ruta & Estrin, Saul & Mickiewicz, Tomasz, 2008. "Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A comparative perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 656-672, November.
    8. Mara Faccio, 2006. "Politically Connected Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 369-386, March.
    9. Thomas Greckhamer, 2016. "CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries: The configurational impact of country-level institutions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 793-815, April.
    10. Ruta Aidis & Julia Korosteleva & Tomasz Marek Mickiewicz, 2008. "Entrepreneurship in Russia," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 88, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    11. Qi Zhang & James L. Chan, 2013. "New development: Fiscal transparency in China—government policy and the role of social media," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 71-75, January.
    12. André Hanelt & René Bohnsack & David Marz & Cláudia Antunes Marante, 2021. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1159-1197, July.
    13. Justin Yifu Lin & Yan Wang, 2020. "Seventy Years of Economic Development: A Review from the Angle of New Structural Economics," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 28(4), pages 26-50, July.
    14. Omar A. El Sawy & Arvind Malhotra & YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Seeking the Configurations of Digital Ecodynamics: It Takes Three to Tango," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 835-848, December.
    15. Toke S. Aidt & Jayasri Dutta, 2008. "Policy Compromises: Corruption And Regulation In A Democracy," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 335-360, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jianhong Zhang & Désirée Gorp & Henk Kievit, 2023. "Digital technology and national entrepreneurship: An ecosystem perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1077-1105, June.
    2. Schade, Philipp & Schuhmacher, Monika C., 2022. "Digital infrastructure and entrepreneurial action-formation: A multilevel study," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(5).
    3. Cong Cheng & Hongfang Cui, 2024. "Combining digital and legacy technologies: firm digital transformation strategies—evidence from Chinese manufacturing companies," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Jian Zhang, 2018. "Public Governance and Corporate Fraud: Evidence from the Recent Anti-corruption Campaign in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 375-396, March.
    5. Alberto Michele Felicetti & Vincenzo Corvello & Salvatore Ammirato, 2024. "Digital innovation in entrepreneurial firms: a systematic literature review," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 315-362, February.
    6. Lin, Karen Jingrong & Karim, Khondkar E. & Carter, Clairmont, 2015. "Why does China's stock market have highly synchronous stock price movements? An information supply perspective," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 68-79.
    7. Piyush Ranjan & Preeti Narwal, 2025. "Investigating Organizational Unlearning and Agility in Digital Transformation for improved Innovation Performance in an Emerging Economy: Moderating Roles of Digital Business Intensity and Firm Sizes," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 26(3), pages 601-623, September.
    8. Estrin, Saul & Prevezer, Martha, 2010. "A survey on institutions and new firm entry: How and why do entry rates differ in emerging markets?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 289-308, September.
    9. Zhao, Hongxin & Lu, Jiangyong, 2016. "Contingent value of political capital in bank loan acquisition: Evidence from founder-controlled private enterprises in China," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 153-174.
    10. Saul Estrin & Martha Prevezer, 2011. "The role of informal institutions in corporate governance: Brazil, Russia, India, and China compared," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 41-67, March.
    11. Ruta Aidis & Saul Estrin & Tomasz Mickiewicz, 2012. "Size matters: entrepreneurial entry and government," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 119-139, July.
    12. Xingqiang Du & Wei Jian & Shaojuan Lai & Yingjie Du & Hongmei Pei, 2015. "Does Religion Mitigate Earnings Management? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 699-749, October.
    13. Christian Fisch & Michael Wyrwich & Thi Lanh Nguyen & Joern H. Block, 2020. "Historical institutional differences and entrepreneurship: the case of socialist legacy in Vietnam," Jena Economics Research Papers 2020-002, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Miao, Chao & Gast, Johanna & Laouiti, Rahma & Nakara, Walid, 2022. "Institutional factors, religiosity, and entrepreneurial activity: A quantitative examination across 85 countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    15. Guo, Xiaochuan & Li, Mengmeng & Wang, Yanlin & Mardani, Abbas, 2023. "Does digital transformation improve the firm’s performance? From the perspective of digitalization paradox and managerial myopia," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Verma, Pratima & Kumar, Vimal & Yalcin, Haydar & Daim, Tugrul, 2023. "Organizational architecture of strategic entrepreneurial firms for digital transformation: A bibliometric analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Shi, Xiangyu & Xi, Tianyang & Zhang, Xiaobo & Zhang, Yifan, 2021. "“Moving Umbrella”: Bureaucratic transfers and the comovement of interregional investments in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    18. Bao, Xiaolu & Johan, Sofia & Kutsuna, Kenji, 2016. "Do political connections matter in accessing capital markets? Evidence from China," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 24-41.
    19. Vartuhí Tonoyan & Robert Strohmeyer & Mohsin Habib & Manfred Perlitz, 2010. "Corruption and Entrepreneurship: How Formal and Informal Institutions Shape Small Firm Behavior in Transition and Mature Market Economies," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(5), pages 803-832, September.
    20. Ting Liu & Ye Huang, 2024. "The influence of subnational corruption on the conversion of foreign proprietorship: Stumbling block or lubricant? Evidence from Sino-foreign joint ventures," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 135-170, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6718-:d:1450802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.