深耕主业、做强实业是企业塑造核心竞争优势、实现高质量发展的内在要求，也是建设现代化产业体系、培育新质生产力的重要基础，受到党和政府的高度关注。然而，随着我国经济由高速增长转向高质量发展阶段，尤其受地方保护主义、区域市场分割、要素流动受阻以及政府行政干预等因素影响，部分企业仍不同程度存在主业边界模糊、盲目多元化扩张、资源配置分散和核心业务投入不足等问题。这不仅削弱了企业长期价值创造能力，也在更深层面制约了实体经济提质增效。在此背景下，如何推动企业回归价值创造本源、聚焦主业发展，已成为当前理论研究与政策实践共同关注的重要议题。作为推进区域协调发展和统一大市场建设的重要制度安排，国家级城市群政策通过统筹空间布局、产业协同、基础设施互联互通与公共服务共建共享，能够在更大区域范围内促进资源要素流动、降低制度性交易成本、扩大企业市场边界并重塑竞争格局，为企业聚焦主业提供了有利外部条件。遗憾的是，现有研究主要集中于考察国家级城市群政策在促进区域经济增长、产业结构升级、创新能力提升等宏观层面的经济后果，或从公司治理、融资约束、竞争环境等视角探讨企业聚焦主业的驱动因素，对“国家级城市群政策能否影响企业聚焦主业”这一问题仍缺乏系统性考察，相关作用机理、边界条件及经济后果也尚未得到充分揭示。基于此，理清国家级城市群政策对企业聚焦主业的具体影响，不仅能够填补现有研究的理论缺口，更能为我国优化国家级城市群发展规划、完善企业主业发展支持政策提供有益参考。

本文基于共同市场理论、交易成本理论、政府干预理论、资源依赖理论及委托代理理论等经典理论，选取2011—2024年中国沪深A股上市公司数据为研究样本，将国务院批复设立的国家级城市群发展规划视为准自然实验，借助多期双重差分模型（DID）系统考察了国家级城市群政策对企业聚焦主业的影响。基准估计结果表明，国家级城市群政策显著促进了企业聚焦主业，且上述结论在经过平行趋势检验、安慰剂检验、替换核心变量、控制潜在政策干扰、工具变量法以及双重机器学习等一系列识别有效性与稳健性检验后依然成立。进一步分析发现，国家级城市群政策对企业聚焦主业的影响具有明显的政策推广效应，且其主业促进效应会随地理距离的增加呈现出“促进—抑制—促进”的非线性特征。

进一步地，本文在“有为政府”与“有效市场”协同作用框架下，识别出了国家级城市群政策影响企业聚焦主业的四条传导路径。一是制度环境优化效应。国家级城市群政策通过推动区域协同治理、削弱地方保护和规范政府行为，减少了企业面临的制度性交易成本和不当政府干预，从而为企业专注主业发展创造了更稳定的制度环境。二是财政金融协同效应。国家级城市群政策通过促进区域财政支持与金融资源统筹配置，显著提升了企业获取政府补助与银行信贷的规模，为企业集中资源发展主业提供了充足的资金保障。三是市场整合赋能效应。国家级城市群政策通过打破行政壁垒和促进要素自由流动，有助于扩大企业主营业务的市场规模，同时增强区域内行业竞争强度，倒逼企业通过聚焦主业发展以构筑核心竞争优势。四是监督治理强化效应。国家级城市群政策有助于提升企业外部监督水平与信息披露质量，有效约束管理层的机会主义行为和盲目多元化冲动，引导企业经营决策回归主业和价值创造本源。

此外，本文立足于微观企业特征、中观行业属性与宏观区域环境三个方面系统考察了国家级城市群政策影响企业聚焦主业的异质性特征。研究发现，在微观企业特征层面，相较于国有企业、成熟期企业与低风险企业，国家级城市群政策对民营企业、成长期与衰退期企业以及高风险企业的主业促进效果更为突出；在中观行业属性层面，相较于垄断行业及受产业政策扶持行业，国家级城市群政策的主业促进效应在非垄断性行业及非产业政策扶持行业中更为明显；在宏观区域环境层面，相较于发展壮大阶段、单中心结构、低市场化水平及未开通高铁的城市群区域，国家级城市群政策在优化提升及培育发展阶段、多中心结构、高市场化水平及已开通高铁的城市群区域内对企业聚焦主业的促进作用更为明显。

最后，本文基于微观企业提质增效与宏观区域高质量发展的现实需求，理论剖析并实证检验了国家级城市群政策影响企业聚焦主业的宏微观经济后果。研究发现，在微观企业层面，国家级城市群政策通过促进企业聚焦主业，显著提升了企业供应链韧性与全要素生产率；在区域层面，国家级城市群政策通过引导企业强化主业经营，进一步推动了区域产业结构升级并带动地区经济持续增长。

相较于已有研究，本文的主要边际贡献如下：第一，从研究视角看，本文将国家级城市群政策与企业聚焦主业纳入统一分析框架，拓展了国家级城市群政策经济效应的研究边界，也深化了对企业聚焦主业外部制度驱动机制的理解。第二，从研究框架看，本文构建了“政策冲击—机制路径—情境异质性—经济后果”的整合性分析框架，较为系统地揭示了国家级城市群政策影响企业聚焦主业的内在逻辑与边界条件，有助于深化对二者之间关系的理论认知。第三，从指标测度看，本文利用年报文本分析方法衡量企业聚焦主业程度，在一定程度上突破了传统财务指标难以充分刻画企业聚焦主业战略重心的局限，为后续相关研究提供了新的测度思路。第四，从实践价值看，本文明确了国家级城市群政策对企业聚焦主业的积极影响，相关研究结论为进一步优化国家级城市群发展政策、完善区域协同治理体系以及分类引导企业聚焦主业发展提供了经验证据和政策启示。

Focusing on main businesses and strengthening the real economy are intrinsic requirements for enterprises to build main competitive advantages and achieve high-quality development; they also serve as a vital foundation for building a modern industrial system and fostering new-quality productive forces, and have received significant attention from the Party and the government. However, as China's economy transitions from high-speed growth to a phase of high-quality development, particularly due to factors such as local protectionism, regional market fragmentation, restricted factor mobility, and government administrative intervention, some enterprises still face issues to varying degrees, including blurred boundaries of their main businesses, blind diversification, scattered resource allocation, and insufficient investment in main operations. This not only weakens enterprises' long-term value creation capabilities but also, at a deeper level, constrains the real economy's efforts to improve quality and enhance efficiency. In this context, how to promote enterprises to return to the source of value creation and focus on their main business development has become an important issue of common concern in both theoretical research and policy practice. As an important institutional arrangement to promote regional coordination and the construction of a unified large market, national-level urban agglomeration policies can promote the flow of resource elements, reduce institutional transaction costs, expand the market boundaries of enterprises, and reshape the competitive landscape across a larger regional scope by coordinating spatial layout, industrial collaboration, infrastructure interconnectivity, and the co-construction and sharing of public services, thus providing favorable external conditions for enterprises to focus on their main business. Unfortunately, existing research primarily focuses on examining the economic consequences of national-level urban cluster policies in promoting regional economic growth, upgrading industrial structures, and enhancing innovation capabilities at a macro level, or exploring the driving factors for enterprises to focus on their main business from the perspectives of corporate governance, financing constraints, and competitive environment. There is still a lack of systemic examination of the question of whether national-level urban cluster policies can influence enterprises' focus on their main businesses. The relevant mechanisms, boundary conditions, and economic consequences have not been fully revealed. Based on this, clarifying the specific impact of national-level urban cluster policies on enterprises' focus on their main business can not only fill the theoretical gap in existing research but also provide valuable references for improving national-level urban cluster development planning and enhancing support policies for the development of enterprises' main businesses in China.

This article is based on classic theories such as the theory of common markets, transaction cost theory, government intervention theory, resource dependence theory, and principal-agent theory. It selects data from A-share listed companies in China from 2011 to 2024 as the research sample. The national-level urban agglomeration development plans approved by the State Council are regarded as quasi-natural experiments. Utilizing a multi-period difference-in-differences (DID) model, the study systematically examines the impact of national-level urban agglomeration policies on enterprises' focus on their main businesses. The baseline estimation results indicate that national-level urban agglomeration policies significantly promote enterprises' focus on their main businesses. This conclusion remains valid after a series of robustness and validity checks, including parallel trend tests, placebo tests, core variable substitutions, controlling for potential policy interference, instrumental variable methods, and double machine learning. Further analysis shows that national urban agglomeration policies exert a sustained positive effect on firms' focus on their main business, and that this effect follows a "positive–negative–positive" pattern as geographical distance increases.

Furthermore, this article identifies four transmission paths through which national-level urban agglomeration policies influence enterprises to focus on their primary businesses, within the framework of the synergistic effect of "proactive government" and "effective market." First is the optimizing effect of the institutional environment. National-level urban agglomeration policies promote regional collaborative governance, weaken local protectionism, and standardize government behavior, thereby reducing the institutional transaction costs and improper government interference faced by enterprises, creating a more stable institutional environment for enterprises to focus on their main business development. Second is the synergistic effect of fiscal and financial collaboration. National-level urban agglomeration policies significantly enhance the scale of government subsidies and bank credit that enterprises can access by promoting regional fiscal support and coordinated allocation of financial resources, thus providing sufficient financial support for enterprises to concentrate resources on the development of their main business. Third is the empowering effect of market integration. National-level urban agglomeration policies promote market scale of the main business of enterprises by breaking administrative barriers and promoting the free flow of factors, while also intensifying industry competition within the region, compelling enterprises to focus on their main business development to build main competitive advantages. Fourth is the strengthening effect of supervisory governance. National-level urban agglomeration policies help to enhance the level of external supervision over enterprises and the quality of information disclosure, effectively constraining management's opportunistic behavior and impulsive diversification, guiding enterprises' business decisions back to their main business and the source of value creation.

In addition, this article systematically examines the heterogeneous characteristics of the impact of national-level urban cluster policies on enterprises focusing on their main business from three aspects: micro-enterprise characteristics, meso-industry attributes, and macro-regional environments. The study finds that at the micro-enterprise characteristics level, compared to state-owned enterprises, mature enterprises, and low-risk enterprises, the promoting effect of national-level urban cluster policies on private enterprises, growing and declining enterprises, and high-risk enterprises is more prominent; at the meso-industry attributes level, compared to monopolistic industries and industries supported by industrial policies, the promoting effect of national-level urban cluster policies is more obvious in non-monopolistic industries and non-industrial policy-supported industries; at the macro-regional environment level, compared to urban cluster areas in the stages of development and expansion, single-center structures, low marketization levels, and those without high-speed rail, the promoting effect of national-level urban cluster policies on enterprises focusing on their main business is more significant in urban cluster areas that are in the optimization, cultivation of development, enhancement, and cultivation development stages, have multi-center structures, high marketization levels, and those that have opened high-speed rail.

Finally, based on the practical needs of micro-enterprise quality enhancement and macro-regional high-quality development, this article theoretically analyzes and empirically tests the macro and microeconomic consequences of national-level urban cluster policies on enterprises focusing on their main business. The research finds that at the micro-enterprise level, national-level urban cluster policies significantly enhance the resilience of enterprise supply chains and total factor productivity by promoting enterprise focus on their main business; at the regional level, national-level urban cluster policies further promote regional industrial structure upgrading and drive sustained regional economic growth by guiding enterprises to strengthen their main business operations.

Compared to existing research, the main marginal contributions of this thesis are as follows: Firstly, from the research perspective, this thesis incorporates national-level urban agglomeration policies and enterprises focusing on their main business into a unified analytical framework, expanding the research boundary of the economic effects of national-level urban agglomeration policies, and deepening the understanding of the external institutional driving mechanisms for enterprises focusing on their main business. Secondly, from the research framework, this thesis constructs an integrated analytical framework of "policy shock - mechanism path - contextual heterogeneity - economic consequences," which systematically reveals the internal logic and boundary conditions of how national-level urban agglomeration policies affect enterprises’ focus on their main business, contributing to a deeper theoretical understanding of the relationship between the two. Thirdly, from the index measurement perspective, this thesis uses annual report text analysis methods to measure the degree of enterprise focus on their main business, breaking through the limitations of traditional financial indicators that are difficult to fully depict the strategic focus of enterprises on their main business, providing a new measurement approach for subsequent related research. Fourthly, from the practical value perspective, this thesis clarifies the positive impact of national-level urban agglomeration policies on enterprises' focus on their main business, and the related research conclusions provide empirical evidence and policy implications for further optimizing national-level urban agglomeration development policies, improving the regional collaborative governance system, categorically guiding enterprises to focus on their main business, and accelerating the construction of a unified national market.

[1]白玮东,袁春生.经营投资问责推动了国有企业“脱虚返实”吗?——来自资本市场的实证检验[J].现代财经(天津财经大学学报),2025,45(05):59-76.

[2]白重恩,杜颖娟,陶志刚,等.地方保护主义及产业地区集中度的决定因素和变动趋势[J].经济研究,2004,(04):29-40.

[3]卞元超,白俊红.区域市场整合能否提升企业的产能利用率？[J].财经研究,2021,47(11):64-77.

[4]蔡昉.劳动力迁移的两个过程及其制度障碍[J].社会学研究,2001,(04):44-51.

[5]蔡显军,汪皓宇,李仲泽.数字化转型促进国有企业聚焦主业了吗?[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2024,39(06):56-68.

[6]曹丰,谷孝颖.非国有股东治理能够抑制国有企业金融化吗?[J].经济管理,2021,43(01):54-71.

[7]车德欣,丁子家,张玲.点绿成金：企业绿色转型与主业业绩[J].学习与实践,2023,(09):55-65.

[8]陈迪宇,王政,徐颖,等. 我国城市群建设进展及任务举措 [J]. 宏观经济管理, 2021, (11): 18-20.

[9]陈建华,李荫.城市群市场一体化对产业结构升级的影响研究[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2024,(12):74-91.

[10]陈健生,王问苈.市场分割抑制了企业技术创新吗[J].当代财经,2025,(03):3-16.

[11]陈群元,喻定权.我国城市群发展的阶段划分、特征与开发模式[J].现代城市研究,2009,24(02):77-82.

[12]陈胜蓝,王鹏程,马慧,等. 《中小企业促进法》的纾困效应：产品市场表现视角 [J]. 世界经济, 2023, 46 (09): 181-205.

[13]陈信元,黄俊.政府干预、多元化经营与公司业绩[J].管理世界,2007,(01):92-97.

[14]陈永胜,崔日明,王艳苹. 自由贸易试验区、服务业集聚与城市经济高质量发展 [J]. 国际商务(对外经济贸易大学学报), 2025, (03): 57-76.

[15]程广斌,吕太升.区域一体化政策何以赋能共同富裕？——来自国家级城市群发展规划的经验证据[J].现代经济探讨,2024,(12):24-36.

[16]崔连标,王佳雪.国家级城市群政策对中国减污降碳的影响研究[J].当代财经,2025,(08):3-16.

[17]崔世娟,孙利,蓝海林.中国企业归核化战略绩效研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009,30(07):164-172.

[18]戴泽伟,潘松剑.实体企业金融化与企业战略差异[J].华东经济管理,2019,33(09):134-141.

[19]邓宏,尹斯斯,马如飞.粤港澳大湾区规划能否提高企业全要素生产率？——来自中国制造业上市公司的证据[J].南方经济,2024,(03):141-158.

[20]邓慧慧,李慧榕.区域一体化与企业成长——基于国内大循环的微观视角[J].经济评论,2021,(03):3-17.

[21]邓可斌,旷鹏程.城市群政策与城商行流动性创造——基于集聚效应和市场一体化效应的双重视角[J].财贸研究,2024,35(07):17-34.

[22]丁任重,许渤胤,张航.城市群能带动区域经济增长吗？——基于7个国家级城市群的实证分析[J].经济地理,2021,41(05):37-45.

[23]董春风,何骏.区域一体化发展提升城市创新能力了吗——来自长三角城市群扩容的经验证据[J].现代经济探讨,2021,(09):109-118.

[24]杜善重,杨兴全,马连福.通道业务监管提升了企业现金持有[J].经济学(季刊),2025,25(01):191-205.

[25]杜勇,张欢,陈建英.金融化对实体企业未来主业发展的影响:促进还是抑制[J].中国工业经济,2017,(12):113-131.

[26]杜勇,周丽.高管学术背景与企业金融化[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2019,45(06):63-74.

[27]方创琳,王振波,马海涛.中国城市群形成发育规律的理论认知与地理学贡献[J].地理学报,2018,73(04):651-665.

[28]方创琳,张舰.中国城市群形成发育的政策保障机制与对策建议[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011,21(10):107-113.

[29]方创琳.城市群空间范围识别标准的研究进展与基本判断[J].城市规划学刊,2009,(04):1-6.

[30]方创琳.中国城市发展方针的演变调整与城市规模新格局[J].地理研究,2014,33(04):674-686.

[31]付彦,徐二明,彭诚.企业归核化战略的市场价值效应和启示——基于中国上市公司的实证分析[J].经济与管理研究,2015,36(06):121-128.

[32]付玉梅,张丽平,李文聪.宏观经济不确定性、多元化与财务柔性[J].财经论丛,2019,(01):61-70.

[33]耿明阳,谢雁翔,金振.市场准入负面清单与企业信息披露质量——理论逻辑和经验证据[J].山西财经大学学报,2022,44(11):79-93.

[34]顾朝林.“十二五”期间需要注重巨型城市群发展问题[J].城市规划,2011,35(01):16-18.

[35]韩丽. 国家级城市群建设对减污降碳治理绩效的影响——基于数字经济发展的复合效应 [J]. 产经评论, 2025, 16 (04): 54-67.

[36]郝晶,何枫,王博文.高管过度自信与上市公司技术创新——基于企业金融化视角[J].系统工程理论与实践,2023,43(03):725-739.

[37]郝盼盼,曹碧倖,贺亚楠.城市群内企业创新投资是否存在联动效应——来自国家级城市群的证据[J].中国科技论坛,2022,(02):105-114.

[38]何剑,何稚忻,魏涛.城市群建设提升了数字经济发展水平吗?[J].财贸研究,2025,36(05):27-40.

[39]洪娇,牛彪,王建新.政府引导基金能促进企业聚焦主业吗?——来自创业板上市公司的经验证据[J].现代财经(天津财经大学学报),2025,45(06):95-110.

[40]胡鞍钢,过勇. 从垄断市场到竞争市场:深刻的社会变革 [J]. 改革与理论, 2002, (05): 10-13.

[41]胡珺,方祺.CEO内部联盟对企业金融化的影响研究[J].管理学报,2025,22(08):1432-1441.

[42]黄群慧.中国产业政策的根本特征与未来走向[J].探索与争鸣,2017,(01):38-41.

[43]黄贤环,吴秋生,王瑶.影子银行发展与企业投资行为选择:实业投资还是金融投资?[J].会计研究,2021,(01):100-111.

[44]黄雅茹,任艳琴.经济集聚对地方政府间税收竞争的影响——来自设立国家级城市群的准自然实验的证据[J].税务研究,2023,(01):100-105.

[45]黄志基,石涛,贺灿飞.城市群批复缓和工业用地出让价格竞争了吗?——来自中国19个城市群的经验证据[J].管理评论,2025,37(05):17-29.

[46]江飞涛,耿强,吕大国,等.地区竞争、体制扭曲与产能过剩的形成机理[J].中国工业经济,2012,(06):44-56.

[47]江艇.因果推断经验研究中的中介效应与调节效应[J].中国工业经济,2022,(05):100-120.

[48]江轩宇,朱梦遥,谢蓉蓉.城市群政策的收入分配效应——基于微观企业劳动收入份额视角的研究[J].财经研究,2023,49(06):4-18.

[49]柯蕴颖,王光辉,刘勇.城市群一体化促进区域产业结构升级了吗[J].经济学家,2022,(07):62-75.

[50]蓝海林,皮圣雷. 经济全球化与市场分割性双重条件下中国企业战略选择研究 [J]. 管理学报, 2011, 8 (08): 1107-1114.

[51]李洪涛,王丽丽.城市群发展规划对要素流动与高效集聚的影响研究[J].经济学家,2020,(12):52-61.

[52]李佳霖,张倩肖,董嘉昌.金融发展、企业多元化战略与高质量发展[J].经济管理,2021,43(02):88-105.

[53]李江龙,彭千芸,杜克锐.区域一体化与城市碳效率——基于城市群政策的实证考察[J].财经科学,2024,(03):89-102.

[54]李文贵,邵毅平. 创始人管理、企业金融化与主业发展 [J]. 财贸研究, 2020, 31 (09): 76-87.

[55]李心武,赵廷宇,牛煜皓,等.国资委巡视促进企业“脱虚向实”了吗?——来自企业金融化的经验证据[J].科学决策,2024,(05):93-108.

[56]李玉刚,叶凯月,吴朋. 研发投入、市场化程度与企业专业化经营 [J]. 科研管理, 2022, 43 (04): 158-164.

[57]李真,李茂林,朱林染.银行金融科技与企业金融化：基于避险与逐利动机[J].世界经济,2023,46(04):140-169.

[58]连立帅,陈超,白俊. 产业政策与信贷资源配置 [J]. 经济管理, 2015, 37 (12): 1-11.

[59]廖秋娴,李荣林,熊治. 区域市场一体化与企业出口质量:基于撤县设区的视角 [J]. 国际贸易问题, 2024, (01): 50-67.

[60]廖雪婷,白俊红.数字政务能否提升企业资源配置效率?[J].现代经济探讨,2024,(04):60-75+92.

[61]林钟高,辛明璇.董事网络位置与企业金融资产投资效率[J].会计研究,2023,(02):79-95.

[62]林钟高,郑军,卜继栓.环境不确定性、多元化经营与资本成本[J].会计研究,2015,(02):36-43+93.

[63]刘倩,朱书尚,吴非.城市群政策能否促进区域金融协调发展?——基于方言视角下的实证检验[J].金融研究,2020,(03):39-57.

[64]刘少波,杨俊宇,张友泽.信息透明度、分析师关注与实体企业金融化[J].南方金融,2021,(12):47-58.

[65]刘胜,顾乃华,李文秀,等.城市群空间功能分工与制造业企业成长——兼议城市群高质量发展的政策红利[J].产业经济研究,2019,(03):52-62.

[66]刘诗源,林志帆,冷志鹏.税收激励提高企业创新水平了吗?——基于企业生命周期理论的检验[J].经济研究,2020,55(06):105-121.

[67]刘新荣,刘警警,班琦. 城市群金融集聚能缓解金融风险吗? [J]. 云南财经大学学报, 2023, 39 (11): 67-78.

[68]刘园园,蔡贵龙. 集团视角下的国有企业混合所有制改革——基于国有集团聚焦主业的经验证据 [J]. 南开管理评论, 2026, 29 (01): 62-73.

[69]柳建华.多元化投资、代理问题与企业绩效[J].金融研究,2009,(07):104-120.

[70]龙志能,李万利.商业银行网点扩张能否助力实体经济“脱虚向实”——基于企业层面银行网点空间分布视角[J].外国经济与管理,2024,46(08):69-85.

[71]陆铭,陈钊.分割市场的经济增长——为什么经济开放可能加剧地方保护?[J].经济研究,2009,44(03):42-52.

[72]陆铭. 建设用地使用权跨区域再配置:中国经济增长的新动力 [J]. 世界经济, 2011, 34 (01): 107-125.

[73]罗军.中国城市群的发展特点与趋势[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2011,22(06):44-52+65.

[74]罗勇根,袁韬.城市群发展与企业创新——基于粤港澳大湾区的经验证据[J].会计与经济研究,2023,37(06):144-158.

[75]罗长远,李铮,智艳.“走出去”是否有助于抑制企业的“脱实向虚”行为?——基于“一带一路”倡议准自然实验的证据[J].经济学(季刊),2023,23(06):2369-2386.

[76]马新啸,黄晓珊.混合所有制治理与国有集团结构效率优化[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2025,27(06):166-186.

[77]毛新述,李美萱,赵振洋,等. 僵尸企业复活与企业金融资产配置——有心栽花抑或无心插柳？ [J]. 南开经济研究, 2025a, (07): 105-125.

[78]毛新述,于芙,从阓匀.国有资本参股与民营企业多元化经营[J].经济管理,2025b,47(10):63-85.

[79]苗长虹,王海江.中国城市群发展态势分析[J].城市发展研究,2005,(04):11-14.

[80]聂昀秋,马晓君,李海明.城市群建设对居民消费率的影响研究[J].中国软科学,2025,(05):187-201.

[81]欧阳慧,李智.我国城市群建设的成效、问题及对策研究[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版),2023,51(03):28-38.

[82]潘松剑,田冠军,戴泽伟.实体企业偏爱理财能反哺主业吗？——中国经济“脱实向虚”的微观证据[J].投资研究,2024,43(03):66-99.

[83]裴梦迪,刘乃全.国家级城市群规划能否促进城市绿色创新?[J].现代经济探讨,2024,(06):16-26.

[84]彭睿,綦好东,亚琨.国有企业归核化与风险承担[J].会计研究,2020,(07):104-118.

[85]彭俞超,黄娴静,沈吉.房地产投资与金融效率——金融资源“脱实向虚”的地区差异[J].金融研究,2018,(08):51-68.

[86]秦鹤,马连福.民营企业何以“大显身手”——身份认同、地位感知和主业发展[J].山西财经大学学报,2025,47(09):85-98.

[87]卿陶,黄先海. 国内市场分割、双重市场激励与企业创新 [J]. 中国工业经济, 2021, (12): 88-106.

[88]尚虎平,刘俊腾.国家级城市群规划实施对非中心城市经济增长的影响效应[J].改革,2025,(01):138-154.

[89]申慧慧,于鹏,吴联生.国有股权、环境不确定性与投资效率[J].经济研究,2012,47(07):113-126.

[90]申杰,昌忠泽.全国统一大市场建设与中小企业专精特新发展[J].经济与管理,2024,38(06):55-64.

[91]盛汐凌,祝树金.交通基础设施建设如何影响企业投资效率——基于高铁开通的准自然实验[J].财经理论与实践,2025,46(05):61-71.

[92]石敏俊,张瑜,郑丹.单中心或多中心：城市群空间结构对TFP的影响[J].中国经济问题,2023,(03):19-32.

[93]史桂芬,孙铂洋,陈志臻.数字金融对中小企业业务结构的影响：多元化还是专业化?[J].贵州财经大学学报,2025,(06):81-89.

[94]宋冬林,姚常成.经济区发展规划的实施促进了城市群的包容性增长吗?——来自我国六大国家级城市群的经验证据[J].求是学刊,2018,45(02):27-38+173.

[95]宋铁波,涂佩轩,吴小节. 市场分割情境下的资源能力、行业特征与优势企业多元化战略 [J]. 软科学, 2013, 27 (05): 26-31.

[96]孙冬营,吴星妍,顾嘉榕,等.长三角城市群工业企业绿色全要素生产率测算及其影响因素[J].中国科技论坛,2021,(12):91-100.

[97]孙继国.金融科技、主业投资与企业影子银行化[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2023,(06):66-75.

[98]孙伟增,郭冬梅. 信息基础设施建设对企业劳动力需求的影响：需求规模、结构变化及影响路径 [J]. 中国工业经济, 2021, (11): 78-96.

[99]锁利铭.中国城市群跨域治理的经验、前景与路径[J].人民论坛,2021,(11):56-59.

[100]唐晓超. 城市群一体化政策能否缓解集聚阴影？——基于长江经济带三大城市群县级数据的实证研究 [J]. 世界地理研究, 2025, 34 (07): 126-138.

[101]唐亚林,于迎.主动对接式区域合作:长三角区域治理新模式的复合动力与机制创新[J].理论探讨,2018,(01):28-35.

[102]汪合黔,陈开洋.产融结合、融资约束与企业多元化发展研究——基于上市公司持股金融机构的准自然实验[J].金融监管研究,2024,(01):1-20.

[103]汪克亮,赵斌,许如玉.区域一体化对碳排放强度的影响——基于国家级城市群政策的考察[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2025,35(08):27-39.

[104]王芳,姚玲珍,刘霞.跨行业经营房地产与企业业绩：相得益彰还是适得其反[J].外国经济与管理,2019,41(10):60-73.

[105]王菁,翁杰,张锐.高管团队成员职能经历多样性能减弱实体企业金融化吗——来自沪深2008—2019年上市公司的检验[J].广东财经大学学报,2022,37(01):96-111.

[106]王克敏,刘静,李晓溪.产业政策、政府支持与公司投资效率研究[J].管理世界,2017,(03):113-124+145+188.

[107]王蕾,陈靖,何婧.地方金融监管改革与实体企业回归本源——基于地方金融“办升局”的准自然实验[J].财经研究,2024,50(01):19-33.

[108]王曙光,王彬.独立董事制度、公司治理与国有企业治理文化[J].社会科学战线,2022,(09):101-112.

[109]王曙光,王彬.央企聚焦主业及其结构性产业整合的路径选择[J].行政管理改革,2021,(05):36-44.

[110]王婷,王科斌,杨晓懿.城市群政策如何提高企业劳动生产率——基于有效市场和有为政府的机制分析[J].云南财经大学学报,2024,40(05):1-15.

[111]王巍,姜智鑫.市场一体化与企业异地创新合作——基于城市群发展规划的实证研究[J].财经研究,2024,50(04):49-63+153.

[112]王雄元,韩飞,彭旋. 市场准入管制放松与企业数字化文本信息披露 [J]. 会计研究, 2025, (03): 15-29.

[113]王逸翔,张红凤,何旭,等.城市群政策能否促进企业专业化分工？——来自中国上市公司的证据[J].财经研究,2023,49(06):19-33.

[114]王永钦,张晏,章元,等.中国的大国发展道路——论分权式改革的得失[J].经济研究,2007,(01):4-16.

[115]王智勇.城市群扩容如何影响区域创新能力？——以长三角城市群为例[J].南通大学学报(社会科学版),2025,41(01):41-55+159-160.

[116]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,等.中介效应检验程序及其应用[J].心理学报,2004,(05):614-620.

[117]吴非,胡慧芷,林慧妍,等.企业数字化转型与资本市场表现——来自股票流动性的经验证据[J].管理世界,2021,37(07):130-144+10.

[118]吴小节,郭咏诗,谭晓霞,等. 中国企业多元化战略的前因组态与驱动机制 [J]. 管理学报, 2023, 20 (10): 1457-1467+1497.

[119]向海凌,耿竹秀,吴非. 绿色金融改革创新试验区政策与企业绿色转型 [J]. 西安财经大学学报, 2025, 38 (03): 38-52.

[120]谢德仁,史学智,刘劲松.国企瘦身健体改革的成效评估：基于企业造血功能的视角[J].南开管理评论,2023,26(01):4-19.

[121]谢皖东,赵爱栋,马贤磊.城市群设立对土地利用效率的影响——基于国家级城市群规划编制批复的准自然实验[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2024,34(05):34-45.

[122]谢漾,洪正.城市群金融集聚是否缓解了中小企业融资问题[J].财贸经济,2023,44(04):106-122.

[123]熊家财,刘充,欧阳才越.数字金融如何服务实体经济：来自企业主业发展的证据[J].会计研究,2024,(04):178-189.

[124]熊金武,徐达,黎丹,等. 破产审判专业化是否提升了企业全要素生产率?——基于破产法庭设立的准自然实验 [J]. 上海经济研究, 2025, (11): 73-85.

[125]徐保昌,谢建国. 市场分割与企业生产率:来自中国制造业企业的证据 [J]. 世界经济, 2016, 39 (01): 95-122.

[126]许超亚,张卫国.城市群建设与企业异地投资——来自中国19大城市群的经验证据[J].经济经纬,2025,42(05):118-131.

[127]许罡.高管投行背景、政策机会与公司金融投资偏好[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2018,(01):33-41.

[128]薛慧丽,王珊珊,张光利.城市群政策对地区创业活动的影响研究[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版),2025,65(02):193-206.

[129]焉嘉豪,苏坤,范亦璇.行业专家独董能否抑制实体企业“脱实向虚”?[J].经济经纬,2025,42(02):134-147.

[130]闫红,井润田,黄雪莲.组织势:研究现状与未来研究展望[J].管理学报,2016,13(01):148-156.

[131]闫永生,刘慧侠.金融改革对实体企业投资水平的影响——国家级金融综合改革试验区的准自然实验[J].经济体制改革,2025,(03):117-125.

[132]杨兴全,曾春华.市场化进程、多元化经营与公司现金持有[J].管理科学,2012,25(06):43-54.

[133]杨兴全,程慧慧.市场准入负面清单制度能否促进实体经济“脱虚返实”——实体企业金融化观察视角[J].现代财经(天津财经大学学报),2024,44(10):3-18.

[134]杨兴全,丁琰,张可欣. 分行业信息披露监管与企业聚焦主责主业 [J]. 管理科学, 2025a, 38 (02): 64-84.

[135]杨兴全,丁琰,张可欣.国有企业聚焦主责主业与企业供应链韧性[J].经济管理,2025b,47(09):22-42.

[136]杨兴全,刘颍,张可欣.产业链“链长制”与国企聚焦主业：“助推器”抑或“绊脚石”[J].会计研究,2025c,(05):147-160.

[137]杨兴全,刘颍.“耐心资本”何以助推国企聚焦主业?——基于“国家队”持股的研究[J].审计与经济研究,2025,40(04):61-73.

[138]杨兴全,刘颖,杨征.业绩考核制度能否促进中央企业突出主业？——基于业绩考核制度第三次修订的准自然实验[J].投资研究,2021a,40(12):52-75.

[139]杨兴全,刘颖.政府引导基金如何助推国有企业聚焦主业[J].财经科学,2025,(04):18-32.

[140]杨兴全,任小毅.多元化经营缓解了非产业政策扶持企业融资约束吗[J].财贸研究,2019,30(03):99-110.

[141]杨兴全,王丽丽,杨征. 机构投资者网络关系与企业创新：信息资源和信息治理 [J]. 当代财经, 2021b, (11): 76-88.

[142]杨兴全,尹兴强,孟庆玺.谁更趋多元化经营:产业政策扶持企业抑或非扶持企业?[J].经济研究,2018,53(09):133-150.

[143]杨兴全,张记元. 连锁股东与企业多元化经营：加速扩张还是聚焦主业 [J]. 现代财经(天津财经大学学报), 2022, 42 (05): 36-55.

[144]杨兴全,张可欣.公平竞争审查制度能否促进企业创新？——基于规制行政垄断的视角[J].财经研究,2023,49(01):63-78.

[145]姚树洁,郑宇,张帆.国家级城市群建设是否促进了区域经济发展——基于双重差分方法的验证[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2024,64(06):172-187+235.

[146]易露霞,吴非,常曦.企业数字化转型进程与主业绩效——来自中国上市企业年报文本识别的经验证据[J].现代财经(天津财经大学学报),2021,41(10):24-38.

[147]殷志高,李恒. 国家级城市群建设能否促进城乡协调发展——基于双重机器学习的经验证据 [J]. 经济经纬, 2025, 42 (05): 75-87.

[148]银温泉,才婉茹.我国地方市场分割的成因和治理[J].经济研究,2001,(06):3-12+95.

[149]于克信,谢佩洪.转型期中国企业多元化经营的制度根源及范式构建研究[J].管理世界,2011,(07):180-181.

[150]于连超,董晋亭,毕茜.主业亏损企业更倾向于过度金融化吗?[J].经济与管理研究,2022,43(11):32-53.

[151]于连超,张卫国,毕茜.产业政策与企业“脱实向虚”：市场导向还是政策套利[J].南开管理评论,2021,24(04):128-142.

[152]于连超,张卫国,眭鑫,等. 高管从军经历与企业金融化：抑制还是促进？ [J]. 科学决策, 2019, (06): 20-42.

[153]余谦,周玲玲,覃一冬.城市群交通基础设施对产业协同集聚的影响研究——单中心—多中心结构的调节作用[J].经济与管理评论,2024,40(04):5-18.

[154]俞可平.特大城市与中国式现代化[J].社会政策研究,2025,(03):3-17+132.

[155]袁博,芮明杰.产业政策对企业非相关多元化经营行为的影响研究[J].当代财经,2017,(01):88-99.

[156]袁也方,万贻健.数字化转型能降低企业对大客户的依赖吗[J].当代财经,2023,(07):94-107.

[157]岳利萍,余焕. 省际行政边界地区减污与增长协同路径探索——来自国家级城市群的证据[J]. 经济经纬, 2025, 42 (05): 3-18.

[158]张国兴,温俊娜,林伟纯,等.城市群建设改善还是恶化了城市空气质量?——基于双重差分模型的实证检验[J].系统工程理论与实践,2022,42(05):1245-1259.

[159]张茂榆,冯豪.城市群政策助推经济高质量发展的机制研究——基于四个国家级城市群的经验证据[J].经济问题探索,2021,(09):87-102.

[160]张楠,王生年.全国统一大市场建设能够降低企业对大客户的依赖吗?[J].经济与管理研究,2025,46(05):89-106.

[161]张树山,谷城. 企业数字化转型与供应链韧性 [J]. 南方经济, 2024, (08): 137-158.

[162]张腾,吴育辉,韩杰. 市场一体化推进与企业跨地区交易——来自公平竞争审查制度的证据 [J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2025, 42 (10): 27-47.

[163]张婷婷,宋冰洁,荣幸,等. 市场分割与企业纵向一体化 [J]. 财贸经济, 2021, 42 (06): 150-164.

[164]张欣,夏宇.城市群能否促进企业绿色创新?——来自城市群政策的准自然实验[J].产业经济研究,2024,(04):15-28.

[165]张怡阁,卜君.高管内部薪酬差距与企业金融化[J].南方金融,2023,(10):18-34.

[166]张玉磊. 新型城镇化的法治视角:从政策之治到法治之治 [J]. 长白学刊, 2016, (03): 56-62.

[167]张梓瑶,覃家琦,谢雁翔,等.融资融券对企业多元化经营的影响研究[J].管理学报,2023,20(09):1398-1408.

[168]赵海峰,张颖.区域一体化对产业结构升级的影响——来自长三角扩容的经验证据[J].软科学,2020,34(12):81-86+103.

[169]赵家未,李文启.城市群建设与城市经济韧性：效应与机制[J].经济经纬,2024,41(06):30-44.

[170]赵娜,王博,刘燕.城市群、集聚效应与“投资潮涌”——基于中国20个城市群的实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2017,(11):81-99.

[171]赵小芸.企业生命周期与多元化发展战略——基于资源、能力和市场机会动态匹配的视角[J].上海经济研究,2008,(07):90-94.

[172]赵晓露.市场一体化与居民消费提升：来自城市层面的证据[J].消费经济,2024,40(05):38-51.

[173]赵欣,侯德帅,方心童.城市群一体化与企业成本粘性[J].云南财经大学学报,2025,41(11):68-94.

[174]郑军,郭宇欣,唐亮.区域一体化合作能否助推产业结构升级?——基于长三角城市经济协调会的准自然实验[J].中国软科学,2021,(08):75-85.

[175]钟章奇,陆扬,刘志雄.城市群规划政策的实施能否缩小非中心城市与中心城市间的经济差距？——来自中国283个城市的证据[J].地理研究,2023,42(04):1050-1069.

[176]种照辉,高志红,覃成林. 网络基础设施建设与城市间合作创新——“宽带中国”试点及其推广的证据 [J]. 财经研究, 2022, 48 (03): 79-93.

[177]周鸿勇,肖维鸽,张松林.城市群空间功能分工、数字经济与企业全要素生产率[J].统计与决策,2025,41(20):114-119.

[178]周阔,王瑞新,陶云清,等.企业绿色化转型与股价崩盘风险[J].管理科学,2022,35(06):56-69.

[179]周磊,胡可煜,张正平.破产审判改革、债权人保护与稳就业[J].财经研究,2024,50(12):62-75+136.

[180]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作——兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设问题长期存在的原因[J].经济研究,2004,(06):33-40.

[181]周力,沈坤荣.国家级城市群建设对绿色创新的影响[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2020,30(08):92-99.

[182]周茜,许晓芳,陆正飞.去杠杆，究竟谁更积极与稳妥？[J].管理世界,2020,36(08):127-148.

[183]朱相宇.企业生命周期视野中的专业化和多元化[J].商业时代,2006,(29):45+62.

[184]朱英明,牟莉,姚士谋.我国区域金融经济协调发展的关键问题与对策研究[J].经济地理,2001,(02):146-149.

[185]Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson J A. The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation[J]. American Economic Review, 2001, 91(5):1369-1401.

[186]Adams R, Almeida H, Ferreira D. Understanding the Relationship Between Founder–CEOs and Firm Performance[J]. Journal of Empirical Finance, 2009, 16(1):136-150.

[187]Aggarwal R K, Samwick A A. Why Do Managers Diversify Their Firms? Agency Reconsidered[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2003, 58(1):71-118.

[188]Amihud Y, Lev B. Risk Reduction as a Managerial Motive for Conglomerate Mergers[J]. The Bell Journal of Economics, 1981, 12(2):605-617.

[189]Bai C E, Du Y, Tao Z, et al. Local Protectionism and Regional Specialization: Evidence from China's Industries[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2004, 63(2):397-417.

[190]Baron R M, Kenny D A. The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51 (6):1173.

[191]Baum C F, Caglayan M, Ozkan N, et al. The Impact of Macroeconomic Uncertainty on Non-Financial Firms' Demand for Liquidity[J]. Review of Financial Economics, 2006, 15(4):289-304.

[192]Begley T M. Using Founder Status, Age of Firm, and Company Growth Rate as the Basis for Distinguishing Entrepreneurs from Managers of Smaller Businesses[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 1995, 10(3):249-263.

[193]Benfratello L, Schiantarelli F, Sembenelli A. Banks and Innovation: Microeconometric Evidence on Italian Firms[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2008, 90(2):197-217.

[194]Berle A A, Means G C. The Modern Corporation and Private Property[M]. New York: Macmillan, 1932.

[195]Bernile G, Bhagwat V, Yonker S. Board Diversity, Firm Risk, and Corporate Policies[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2018, 127(3):588-612.

[196]Boisot M, Meyer M W. Which Way Through the Open Door? Reflections on the Internationalization of Chinese Firms[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2008, 4(3):349-365.

[197]Borusyak K, Jaravel X, Spiess J. Revisiting Event-Study Designs: Robust and Efficient Estimation[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2024, 91(6):3253-3285.

[198]Burgstaller J, Wagner E. How Do Family Ownership and Founder Management Affect Capital Structure Decisions and Adjustment of SMEs? Evidence from a Bank-Based Economy[J]. The Journal of Risk Finance, 2015, 16(1):73-101.

[199]Callaway B, Sant’Anna P H C. Difference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2021, 225(2):200-230.

[200]Campello M, Graham J R, Harvey C R. The Real Effects of Financial Constraints: Evidence from a Financial Crisis[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2010, 97(3):470-487.

[201]Cengiz D, Dube A, Lindner A, et al. The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2019, 134(3):1405-1454.

[202]Chernozhukov V, Chetverikov D, Demirer M, et al. Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Structural Parameters[J]. The Econometrics Journal, 2018, 21(1):C1-C68.

[203]Coase R H. The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica, 1937, 4(16):386-405.

[204]Davis G F, Cobb J A. Resource Dependence Theory: Past and Future[J]. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2010, 28:21-42.

[205]Demir F. Capital Market Imperfections and Financialization of Real Sectors in Emerging Markets: Private Investment and Cash Flow Relationship Revisited[J]. World Development, 2009, 37(5):953-964.

[206]Deniau J F. The Common Market[M]. London: Barrie and Rockliff with Pall Mall Press, 1962.

[207]Denis D J, Denis D K, Sarin A. Agency Problems, Equity Ownership, and Corporate Diversification[J]. The Journal of Finance, 1997, 52(1):135-160.

[208]Di Giuli A, Laux P A. The Effect of Media-Linked Directors on Financing and External Governance[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2022, 145(2):103-131.

[209]Dickinson V. Cash Flow Patterns as a Proxy for Firm Life Cycle[J]. The Accounting Review, 2011, 86(6):1969-1994.

[210]DiMaggio P J, Powell W W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields[J]. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48(2):147-160.

[211]Ding R, Zhou T, Yin J, et al. Does the Urban Agglomeration Policy Reduce Energy Intensity? Evidence from China [J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, 19 (22):14764.

[212]Ding S, Guariglia A, Knight J. Investment and Financing Constraints in China: Does Working Capital Management Make a Difference?[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2013, 37(5):1490-1507.

[213]Drees J M, Heugens P P. Synthesizing and Extending Resource Dependence Theory: A Meta-Analysis[J]. Journal of Management, 2013, 39(6):1666-1698.

[214]Duranton G, Puga D. Micro-Foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies[J]. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 2004, 4:2063-2117.

[215]Fama E F, Jensen M C. Separation of Ownership and Control[J]. The Journal of Law and Economics, 1983, 26(2):301-325.

[216]Fama E F. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1980, 88(2):288-307.

[217]Feldman E R, Amit R, Villalonga B. Family Firms and the Stock Market Performance of Acquisitions and Divestitures[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2019, 40(5):757-780.

[218]Feng Y, Lee C C, Peng D. Does Regional Integration Improve Economic Resilience? Evidence from Urban Agglomerations in China[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2023, 88:104273.

[219]Francis B, Hasan I, Wu Q. Professors in the Boardroom and Their Impact on Corporate Governance and Firm Performance[J]. Financial Management, 2015, 44(3):547-581.

[220]Gölgeci I, Kuivalainen O. Does Social Capital Matter for Supply Chain Resilience? The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Marketing-Supply Chain Management Alignment[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2020, 84:63-74.

[221]Goodman-Bacon A. Difference-in-Differences with Variation in Treatment Timing[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2021, 225(2):254-277.

[222]Harjoto M A, Laksmana I, Yang Y. Board Diversity and Corporate Investment Oversight[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2018, 90:40-47.

[223]Havens R M, Balassa B. The Theory of Economic Integration [J]. Economica, 1961, 29 (1):47.

[224]Henderson J V. The Sizes and Types of Cities[J]. The American Economic Review, 1974, 64(4):640-656.

[225]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.

[226]Jensen M C. Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers[J]. The American Economic Review, 1986, 76(2):323-329.

[227]Jiang N, Jiang W, Zhang J, et al. Can National Urban Agglomeration Construction Reduce PM2.5 Pollution? Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in China[J]. Urban Climate, 2022, 46:101302.

[228]John K, Litov L, Yeung B. Corporate Governance and Risk‐Taking[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2008, 63(4):1679-1728.

[229]Johnson W C, Yi S. How Do Founder CEOs Create Value?[J]. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 2013, 42(5):777-812.

[230]Keynes J M. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money[M]. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1936.

[231]Khanna T, Palepu K. Why Focused Strategies May Be Wrong for Emerging Markets[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1997, 75(4):41-51.

[232]Kim H, Kung H. The Asset Redeployability Channel: How Uncertainty Affects Corporate Investment[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2017, 30(1):245-280.

[233]Knox A D, Myrdal G. Economic Theory and Under-Developed Regions [J]. Economica, 1960, 27 (107):280.

[234]Krippner G R. The Financialization of the American Economy[J]. Socio-Economic Review, 2005, 3(2):173-208.

[235]Krishnaswami S, Subramaniam V. Information Asymmetry, Valuation, and the Corporate Spin-Off Decision[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1999, 53(1):73-112.

[236]Krugman P. Increasing Returns and Economic Geography[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1991, 99(3):483-499.

[237]Krugman P. Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade[J]. American Economic Review, 1980, 70(5):950-959.

[238]Kuusela P, Keil T, Maula M. Driven by Aspirations, but in What Direction? Performance Shortfalls, Slack Resources, and Resource‐Consuming vs. Resource‐Freeing Organizational Change[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2017, 38(5):1101-1120.

[239]Lewellen W G. A Pure Financial Rationale for the Conglomerate Merger[J]. The Journal of Finance, 1971, 26(2):521-537.

[240]Li J J, Fung H G, An S. Government Venture Capital Funds: Balancing the Impact of Social and Financial Goals on Startups[J]. China Economic Review, 2024, 85:102185.

[241]Markides C C. Diversification, Refocusing, and Economic Performance[M]. MIT Press, 1995.

[242]Markides C. Corporate Refocusing[J]. Business Strategy Review, 1993, 4(1):1-15.

[243]Meade J E. The Theory of Customs Unions[M]. London: Amsterdam, 1955:67-88.

[244]Miao J, Wang P. Sectoral Bubbles, Misallocation, and Endogenous Growth[J]. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2014, 53:153-163.

[245]Miller D J, Yang H S. The Dynamics of Diversification: Market Entry and Exit by Public and Private Firms[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2016, 37(11):2323-2345.

[246]Myers S C. Determinants of Corporate Borrowing[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1977, 5(2):147-175.

[247]Negri M, Cagno E, Colicchia C, et al. Integrating Sustainability and Resilience in the Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2021, 30(7):2858-2886.

[248]North D C. Institutions and the Process of Economic Change[J]. Management International, 2005, 9(3):1-7.

[249]North D C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

[250]Opie W, Tian G G, Zhang H F. Corporate Pyramids, Geographical Distance, and Investment Efficiency of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2019, 99:95-120.

[251]Orhangazi Ö. Financialisation and Capital Accumulation in the Non-Financial Corporate Sector: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation on the US Economy: 1973–2003[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2008, 32(6):863-886.

[252]Peng M W. Towards an Institution-Based View of Business Strategy[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2002, 19(2):251-267.

[253]Penrose E T. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm[M]. New York: Wiley, 1959.

[254]Petersen M A, Rajan R G. Does Distance Still Matter? The Information Revolution in Small Business Lending[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2002, 57(6):2533-2570.

[255]Pfeffer J, Salancik G R. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective[M]. Harper & Row, 1978.

[256]Poncet S. Measuring Chinese Domestic and International Integration[J]. China Economic Review, 2003, 14(1):1-21.

[257]Porter M E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors[M]. New York: Free Press, 1980.

[258]Porter M E. From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy[M]. Readings in Strategic Management. London: Macmillan Education UK, 1989:234-255.

[259]Prahalad C, Hamel G. The Core Competence of the Corporation[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1990, 68(3):79-91.

[260]Rose N L, Shepard A. Firm Diversification and CEO Compensation: Managerial Ability or Executive Entrenchment?[J]. Nber Working Papers, 1994, 28 (3):489-514.

[261]Ross S A. The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem[J]. The American Economic Review, 1973, 63(2):134-139.

[262]Scitovsky T. Economic Theory and Western Europe Integration[M]. Stanford University Press, 1958.

[263]Selznick P. TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization[M]. Univ of California Press, 1953.

[264]Shan J, Yang S, Yang S, et al. An Empirical Study of the Bullwhip Effect in China[J]. Production and Operations Management, 2014, 23(4):537-551.

[265]Smith A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

[266]Solow R M. Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function[J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957, 39(3):312-320.

[267]Stein J C. Efficient Capital Markets, Inefficient Firms: A Model of Myopic Corporate Behavior[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1989, 104(4):655-669.

[268]Stiglitz J E. Markets, Market Failures, and Development[J]. The American Economic Review, 1989, 79(2):197-203.

[269]Stowe J D, Xing X. Can Growth Opportunities Explain the Diversification Discount?[J]. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2006, 12(4):783-796.

[270]Stulz R M. Managerial Discretion and Optimal Financing Policies[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1990, 26(1):3-27.

[271]Stulz R M. Rethinking Risk Management[J]. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1996, 9(3):8-25.

[272]Tinbergen J. International Economic Integration[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1954.

[273]Tukamuhabwa B R, Stevenson M, Busby J, et al. Supply Chain Resilience: Definition, Review and Theoretical Foundations for Further Study[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2015, 53(18):5592-5623.

[274]Viner J. Full Employment at Whatever Cost[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1950, 64(3):385-407.

[275]Wang S, Yang C, Hou D, et al. How Do Urban Agglomerations Drive Economic Development? A Policy Implementation and Spatial Effects Perspective[J]. Economic Analysis and Policy, 2023, 80:1224-1238.

[276]Waterman R H, Peters T J. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies[M]. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.

[277]Williamson O E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting[M]. New York: Free Press, 1985.

[278]Wry T, Lounsbury M, Glynn M A. Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship[J]. Organization Science, 2011, 22(2):449-463.

[279]Young A. The Razor's Edge: Distortions and Incremental Reform in the People's Republic of China[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, 115(4):1091-1135.

[280]Zhang W, Cui R, Li C, et al. Impact of Urban Agglomeration Construction on Urban Air Quality–Empirical Test Based on PSM–DID Model[J]. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13(1):15099.

[281]Zhao K, Huang H, Wu W. Can the Establishment of State-Level Urban Agglomeration Stimulate Enterprise Innovation?—Taking Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta as an Example[J]. Plos One, 2022, 17(8):e0273154.