贸易摩擦作为近年来世界经济格局最大的风险事件之一，不仅延缓了多边主义包容发展的整体进程，也对我国以广大中小企业为代表的经营主体产生直接且深远的影响。本文采用多个来源的企业层面微观数据，以美国加征关税为现实背景，探讨中小企业应对中美贸易摩擦的实际效果和决策机制。本文首先介绍了中美贸易摩擦的政策背景和关税变动趋势，并展示了以高新技术企业和新三板企业为代表的中小企业在贸易往来上的统计特征。研究发现，对美出口产品的平均关税自2018年下半年起显著上升，而在事件前对美出口的中小企业已遍布制造业的各个子行业和我国的主要地区。基于此，本文进一步结合关税清单构造企业层面具有差异化的出口强度。其次，本文利用某一线城市高新技术企业的全量样本，系统研究贸易摩擦对于中小企业创新产出的影响。基准回归发现，相比于对照组，受出口冲击企业的实质性创新和策略性创新均会增加，回归结果具有统计意义和经济意义的显著性，其中对于大型企业和国有企业而言，这种促进效应更加突出。进一步通过机制分析，研究表明贸易摩擦是通过加大政策扶持力度、优化人力资本结构和增加企业基础研究的方式从而影响企业的创新产出。接下来，本文结合新三板企业的公开数据，全面分析贸易摩擦对于中小企业信贷配置的影响。基准结果显示，相比于对照组，受出口冲击企业的新增贷款规模和存量贷款比例均显著下降，回归结果通过了一系列稳健性检验，且抑制效应集中于要素市场化较弱地区和资本密集型行业。本文还从商业信用具备的“替代效应”与金融化程度具备的“信号效应”两种渠道解释了企业在贸易摩擦发生后信贷走弱的潜在原因。最后，本文借助资本市场的中小企业股价数据，结合已有研究，讨论了贸易摩擦对于中小企业股价崩盘风险的影响。基准回归表明，相对于对照组，受出口冲击企业的股价崩盘风险出现显著下降。借助一系列分组检验，本文发现一方面分析师关注和媒体报道在贸易摩擦发生后的曝光作用有利于缓释崩盘风险，另一方面投资效率高、过度负债小、金融化程度低的企业在风险时期也会由于减少失败概率而有相对明显的风险释放。
Trade friction, as one of the greatest risky events in the world economic landscape in recent years, has not only slowed the overall process of inclusive development under multilateralism but also exerted direct and profound impacts on Chinese enterprises, particularly on the vast majority of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This paper utilizes micro-level firm data from multiple sources against the backdrop of the United States imposing tariffs to explore the real effect and decision-making mechanisms of SMEs in response to Sino-US trade frictions.Firstly, the paper introduces the policy background and tariff trends of Sino-US trade frictions, and presents the statistical characteristics of SMEs in trade situation, exemplified by high-tech companies and companies listed on the New Third Board. It is found that the average tariff on products exported to the US have significantly increased since the second half of 2018, and SMEs exporting to the US were spread across various sub-sectors of manufacturing and major regions of China prior to the event. Based on this, the paper further constructs a firm-level export intensity with differentiation using the tariff list.Secondly, using a comprehensive sample of high-tech enterprises in a first-tier city, the paper systematically examines the impact of trade frictions on the innovation output of SMEs. The baseline regression reveals that, compared to the control group, both substantive innovation and strategic innovation of enterprises affected by export shocks increase, with the regression results being statistically and economically significant. This promotional effect is more pronounced for large enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Further mechanism analysis indicates that trade frictions affect firms‘ innovation output by increasing policy support, optimizing human capital structure, and boosting foundational research of enterprises.Next, by integrating public data of companies listed on the New Third Board, the paper comprehensively analyzes the impact of trade frictions on credit allocation for SMEs. The baseline results show that, compared to the control group, both the scale of new loans and the ratio of existing loans for enterprises affected by export shocks significantly decrease. The regression results have passed a series of robustness tests, and the inhibitory effect is concentrated in regions with weaker marketization of factors and capital-intensive industries. The paper also explains the potential reasons for the weakening of credit post-trade frictions through the "substitution effect" of commercial credit and the "signaling effect" of the degree of financialization.Lastly, leveraging stock price data of SMEs in the A-share capital market and combining existing research, the paper discusses the impact of trade frictions on the stock price crash risk of SMEs. The baseline regression indicates that, compared to the control group, there is a significant decrease in the stock price crash risk of enterprises affected by export shocks. Through a series of subgroup tests, the paper finds that, on the one hand, the exposure effect of analyst attention and media reporting after the occurrence of trade frictions is beneficial in mitigating crash risk, while on the other hand, enterprises with higher investment efficiency, lower over-leverage and financialization levels also exhibit a relatively clear risk release during risky periods due to a reduced probability of failure.
