Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article

Identification of the enterprise financialization motivation on crowding out R&D innovation: evidence from listed companies in China

  • Enterprise financial asset allocation depends on its motivation, which significantly influences its R&D innovation. In this study, we theoretically analyzed the motivation behind the crowding-out effect of enterprise financialization on R&D innovation and constructed a panel data model to identify enterprise financialization behavior. Furthermore, we analyzed the characteristics of enterprises with two types of effects on R&D innovation: Crowding-out and non-crowding-out. Using disclosed data from listed companies in China as the sample, the following conclusions were drawn. First, there are two types of motivation for enterprise financial assets: reservoir motivation and substitute motivation. This difference in motivation leads to whether there is a crowding-out effect of enterprise financialization on R&D innovation. Second, based on whether there is a crowding-out effect on enterprise R&D innovation, we found that the difference in reservoir motivation between the two types of samples is reflected in the intensity of inhibition, while the difference in substitute motivation is reflected in significance. Third, there are differences in the mechanism variables of financialization motivation among different samples. The moderating effect of equity concentration is reflected in its intensity, while the moderating effect of financing constraints is reflected in its significance.

    Citation: Yue Liu, Yixian Wen, Yulan Xiao, Lichang Zhang, Shan Huang. Identification of the enterprise financialization motivation on crowding out R&D innovation: evidence from listed companies in China[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5951-5970. doi: 10.3934/math.2024291

    Related Papers:

    [1] Khongorzul Dashdondov, Mi-Hye Kim, Mi-Hwa Song . Deep autoencoders and multivariate analysis for enhanced hypertension detection during the COVID-19 era. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(5): 3202-3229. doi: 10.3934/era.2024147
    [2] Gaohui Fan, Ning Li . Application and analysis of a model with environmental transmission in a periodic environment. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(9): 5815-5844. doi: 10.3934/era.2023296
    [3] Zimeng Lv, Jiahong Zeng, Yuting Ding, Xinyu Liu . Stability analysis of time-delayed SAIR model for duration of vaccine in the context of temporary immunity for COVID-19 situation. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 1004-1030. doi: 10.3934/era.2023050
    [4] Hui Cao, Mengmeng Han, Yunxiao Bai, Suxia Zhang . Hopf bifurcation of the age-structured SIRS model with the varying population sizes. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3811-3824. doi: 10.3934/era.2022194
    [5] Comfort Ohajunwa, Carmen Caiseda, Padmanabhan Seshaiyer . Computational modeling, analysis and simulation for lockdown dynamics of COVID-19 and domestic violence. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2446-2464. doi: 10.3934/era.2022125
    [6] Yazao Yang, Haodong Tang, Tangzheng Weng . Changes in public travel willingness in the post-COVID-19 era: Evidence from social network data. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(7): 3688-3703. doi: 10.3934/era.2023187
    [7] Hao Nong, Yitan Guan, Yuanying Jiang . Identifying the volatility spillover risks between crude oil prices and China's clean energy market. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(12): 4593-4618. doi: 10.3934/era.2022233
    [8] Xiangyun Shi, Dan Zhou, Xueyong Zhou, Fan Yu . Predicting the trend of leptospirosis in China via a stochastic model with vector and environmental transmission. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(6): 3937-3951. doi: 10.3934/era.2024176
    [9] Shirali Kadyrov, Farkhod Haydarov, Khudoyor Mamayusupov, Komil Mustayev . Endemic coexistence and competition of virus variants under partial cross-immunity. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 1120-1143. doi: 10.3934/era.2025050
    [10] Jorge Rebaza . On a model of COVID-19 dynamics. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(2): 2129-2140. doi: 10.3934/era.2020108
  • Enterprise financial asset allocation depends on its motivation, which significantly influences its R&D innovation. In this study, we theoretically analyzed the motivation behind the crowding-out effect of enterprise financialization on R&D innovation and constructed a panel data model to identify enterprise financialization behavior. Furthermore, we analyzed the characteristics of enterprises with two types of effects on R&D innovation: Crowding-out and non-crowding-out. Using disclosed data from listed companies in China as the sample, the following conclusions were drawn. First, there are two types of motivation for enterprise financial assets: reservoir motivation and substitute motivation. This difference in motivation leads to whether there is a crowding-out effect of enterprise financialization on R&D innovation. Second, based on whether there is a crowding-out effect on enterprise R&D innovation, we found that the difference in reservoir motivation between the two types of samples is reflected in the intensity of inhibition, while the difference in substitute motivation is reflected in significance. Third, there are differences in the mechanism variables of financialization motivation among different samples. The moderating effect of equity concentration is reflected in its intensity, while the moderating effect of financing constraints is reflected in its significance.



    Weighted distributions are used when sampling procedures occur with unequal sampling probabilities proportional to a given weight function. The introduction of weighted distributions dates back to [12]. The formal definition and several statistical applications can be found in [41]. In 1977 and 1978, Patil and Rao developed further applications of weighted distributions in [39] and [40] respectively. In recent decades, stochastic comparisons of weighted distributions have been studied in the literature in the context of reliability and life testing. To name a few, in 2006 Bartoszewicz and Skolimowska in [4] and in 2008 Misra et al. in [35] obtained results for the preservation of some stochastic orders and aging classes under weighted distributions. Subsequently, the same study using different approaches to prove the preservation results has been done in [15,18,19]. Recently, a typical family of univariate weighted distributions with a parameter-indexed weight function imposing on a base distribution that does not depend on the parameter (on which the weight function depends) has been considered by Albabtain et al. in [2]. They have obtained some conservation properties of stochastic orderings under the typical class of weighted distributions. They have also developed their results under mixture weighted distributions. The study of size-biased distribution, as an important weighted distribution, and its mixture has been conducted in [26]. The parametric family of distributions considered in [2] includes many well-known statistical survival models and the extended mixture model also comprises some reputable frailty models where the parameter is an unobservable factor [14]. In particular, a typical family of semiparametric distributions can be viewed as a weighted distribution, which may have further advantages and applications [2].

    The present study aims to analyse the concept of dependence in the mixture weighted distribution through various partial dependence structures and also introduce methods for deriving the copula function. Since in a general mixture model the overall population random variable is usually related to the mixing random variable thus the study of the dependence structure between these random variables in the model is worth considering. In the context of some frailty models, some researchers have investigated this kind of dependence problem. For example, in the context of the mixture proportional hazards model, it was demonstrated in [47] that the output random variable and the mixed (frailty) random variable exhibit a negative dependency. The proportional odds model, as found by [32], induces a positive dependence between the overall population random variable and the mixing random variable (random tipping parameter). However, there is a lack of further general and comprehensive methods in the literature to present a a commonly used technique to get the copula functions arisen from mixture models.

    The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present some preliminary concepts including a parametric weighted distribution and its mixture, a semiparametric model and its mixture, several stochastic orders and also a number of partial dependence structures. In Section 3, in the first part we give some necessary and sufficient conditions for the partial dependence structures in the mixture weighted distribution with many examples which are moved to Appendix to enhance the readability. In the second part in Section 3, the copula function associated with the mixture semiparametric model is extracted with some example of well-known frailty models which are transmitted to Appendix. In Section 4, the paper concludes with a brief summary of the results and future studies of the current work.

    In this section, some useful notions in distribution theory that will be used throughout the paper which are well-known in the previous literature are presented.

    Let X be an absolutely continuous random variable with cumulative distribution function (cdf) FX and probability density function (pdf) fX. Denote by ¯FX=1FX the survival function (sf) of X. For some θχ, let w:xw(x;θ) be a non-negative function such that η(θ)=E(w(X;θ))<. The random variable Xw, which is the weighted version of X with weight function w(;θ), has cdf

    F(x;θ)=1η(θ)x0w(x;θ)dFX(x), (2.1)

    and the pdf associated with (2.1) is

    f(x;θ)=w(x;θ)fX(x)η(θ). (2.2)

    To develop the mixture model of (2.1) when θ is a realization of a mixing random variable Θ, we consider random variable X with cdf

    F(x)=θχF(x;θ)dΛ(θ)=E[v(X)Xx]FX(x), (2.3)

    where v(x)=E[w(x,Θ)η(Θ)], Λ is the cdf of Θ with corresponding pdf λ. The pdf of X is obtained as

    f(x)=θχf(x,θ)dΛ(θ)=fX(x)v(x). (2.4)

    The mixture model (2.3) is pervasive to be used in different situations since it encompasses many other models depending on variety of choices of the weight function w(x,θ).

    Here, we consider a semiparametric class of distributions that is characterised by having a parameter that is itself a distribution function. If the underlying distribution is FX then a semiparametric family is said to provide a way to add a new parameter θ, extending the family from which FX originates. There are many families of distributions that can be assumed to come from the standard distributions over semiparametric families that add a second parameter. Therefore, the study of semiparametric families is useful for two purposes: it provides a new understanding of standard distribution families and it shows methods for extending families to add flexibility in fitting data. A typical family of semiparametric distributions that encompasses several well-known models in reliability and survival analysis is considered. Suppose that X is a random variable with distribution function FX and that θ is a parameter with values in χR. The semiparametric family with underlying distribution FX is defined as

    Fθ(x)=d(FX(x),θ),x0,θχ, (2.5)

    in which

    d:[0,1][0,1]
    ud(u,θ)

    is a non-negative function requiring the following conditions:

    (i) 0d(u,θ)1, for all u[0,1] and θχ.

    (ii) d(0,θ)=0, for all θχ.

    (iii) d(1,θ)=1, for all θχ.

    (iv) d is non-decreasing and right continuous for all θχ.

    The function d may be referred to as the generator of the underlying semiparametric family of distribution. Provided that (i)–(iv) hold, F(|θ) in (2.1) is a distribution function for any θχ. By considering

    ξ:[0,1][0,)
    xξ(x,θ)

    a general family of functions d in (2.1) is constructed as follows:

    d(u,θ)=u0ξ(x,θ)dx10ξ(x,θ)dx. (2.6)

    Specific choices of the function ξ in (2.6) by which several reputable models are built includes:

    (i) Proportional hazard rates model. ξ(x,θ)=1(1x)θ, where θ>0.

    (ii) Proportional reversed hazard rates model. ξ(x,θ)=xθ, where θ>0.

    (iii) Proportional odds model. ξ(x,θ)=1(1ˉθ(1x))2, where θ>0.

    (iv) Upper tail distribution ξ(x,θ)=I(xθ) with θ[0,1).

    (v) Lower tail distribution ξ(x,θ)=I(x<θ) with θ(0,1].

    In the cases where the underlying distribution function is absolutely continuous, the density function associated with (2.5) is given in terms of (2.6) by

    fθ(x)=ξ(FX(x),θ)η(θ)fX(x), (2.7)

    with η(θ)=E[ξ(FX(X),θ)]=10ξ(x,θ)dx, being the normalizing constant. The mixture model of (2.5) with cdf

    F(x)=θχd(FX(x),θ)dΛ(θ), (2.8)

    and pdf

    f(x)=fX(x)θχξ(FX(x),θ)η(θ)dΛ(θ), (2.9)

    will also be considered. It is assumed that X has pdf and cdf f and F, respectively, in this case. It can be seen that the family (2.7) is indeed a weighted distribution of F with the corresponding weight function w(x,θ)=ξ(F(x),θ), which depends on the underlying distribution function. In spite of that, the problem of studying the proposed family of semiparametric distributions in (2.5) lies in the framework of weighted distributions with a parameter-indexed weight function.

    The theory of stochastic orders has been developed to make stochastic comparisons and also study of structural properties of complex stochastic systems in several fields. A number of stochastic orders has been routinely utilized in many applications in economics, finance, insurance, management science, operations research, statistics, and various other contexts [6,37,42].

    Let X and Y be two non-negative random variables with cdfs F and G, pdfs (whenever they exist) f and g, respectively. Then, the hazard rates of X and Y are defined as hX(t)=f(t)ˉF(t) for all t:ˉF(t)>0 and hY(t)=g(t)ˉG(t) for all t:ˉG(t)>0, where ˉF and ˉG are, respectively, the sfs of X and Y. The reversed hazard rates of X and Y are given by rX(t)=f(t)F(t) for all t:F(t)>0 and rY(t)=g(t)G(t) for all t:G(t)>0. Four well-known stochastic orders to compare the magnitude of the random variables X and Y are defined as follows.

    Definition 1. The random variable X is said to be less (resp. greater) or equal than the random variable Y in the (see, e.g., [42])

    (i) likelihood ratio order (denoted as Xlr(resp.lr)Y) whenever g(t)f(t) is increasing (resp. decreasing) in t0.

    (ii) hazard rate order (denoted as Xhr(resp.hr)Y) whenever hX(t)(resp.)hY(t) for all t0 or equivalently if ˉG(t)ˉF(t) is increasing (resp. decreasing) in t0.

    (iii) reversed hazard rate order (denoted as Xrh(resp.rh)Y) whenever rX(t)(resp.)rY(t) for all t0 or equivalently if G(t)F(t) is increasing (resp. decreasing) in t0.

    (iv) usual stochastic order (denoted as Xst(resp.st)Y) whenever ˉF(t)(resp.)ˉG(t) for all t0.

    The stochastic orders in Definition 1 are connected as indicated in the following chain:

    Xlr(lr)YXhr(hr)Y
    Xrh(rh)YXst(st)Y.

    The notion of dependence is quantified by some inequalities that represent some well-known concepts of dependence from weakest to strongest in the bivariate case [8,11,43]. The following definition introduces totally positive (reverse regular) of order two functions.

    Definition 2. A non-negative real valued bivariate function h is said to be totally positive of order 2 (TP2) in (x,y)χ×Υ, whenever

    h(x1,y1)h(x2,y2)h(x1,y2)h(x2,y1), (2.10)

    for all x1x2χ and y1y2Υ, where χ and γ are two arbitrary subsets of the real line R. If the orientation of the inequality in (2.10) is reversed, then h is called the reverse regular of order 2 (RR2) in (x,y)χ×Υ

    Next, a number of partial dependencies from [38] are presented.

    Definition 3. Suppose that (X,Y) is a random pair with the joint cdf F, the joint sf ˉF and the joint pdf f. We write FX and FY for marginal cdf of X and marginal cdf of Y, respectively.

    (i) The random variables X and Y are said to be positive (negative) likelihood ratio dependent, PLRD (NLRD), if f(x,y) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,y){(x,y)f(x,y)>0}.

    (ii) The random variable Y is stochastically increasing (decreasing) in X, SI(YX) (SD(YX)) if P(Y>yX=x) is increasing (decreasing) in x, for all y.

    (iii) The random variables X and Y are left corner set decreasing (increasing), LCSD(X,Y) [LCSI(X,Y)] if F(x,y) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,y){(x,y):F(x,y)>0}.

    (iv) The random variables X and Y are right corner set increasing (decreasing), RCSI(X,Y) (RCSD(X,Y)) if ˉF(x,y) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,y){(x,y):ˉF(x,y)>0}.

    (v) The random variables X and Y are positive (negative) quadrant dependent, PQD(X,Y) [NQD(X,Y)) whenever F(x,y)()FX(x)FY(y) for all (x,y)R2.

    The dependence structures in Definition 3 are connected as:

    SI(Y|X)PLRD(X,Y)LCSD(X,Y),RCSI(X,Y)NQD(X,Y).SD(X|Y)NLRD(X,Y)LCSI(X,Y),RCSD(X,Y)PQD(X,Y).

    The PLRD (NLRD), the RCSI (RCSD), the LCSD (LCSI) and the SI (SD) as well as the PQD (NQD) structures for the mixing random variable Θ and the overall population random variable X which follows the cdf (2.3) are characterized in Subsection 3.1 by the stochastic orders given in Subsection 2.3.

    The copula function provides a unique concept of dependence that is completely detached from all other characteristics of the underlying marginal distributions. The copula function enables the dependence structure to be separated from the marginal distributions (see, e.g., [9,20,21,30,38]. The copula is a measure playing a central role in modelling the dependence between the components of a random pair. More precisely, let X and Y be continuous random variables with joint distribution function H and marginal distribution functions F and G, respectively. The copula C associated with the random pair (X,Y) is the joint distribution function of the uniform pair (U,V) such that U=F(X) and V=G(Y). According to the well-known Sklar's theorem, the copula can express in terms of the joint and marginal distribution functions as follows:

    C(u,v)=H(F1(u),G1(v)), for all (u,v)[0,1]2,

    where F1 and G1 denote the inverse functions of F and G. Notice that the previous formula is equivalent to

    H(x,y)=C(F(x),G(y)), for all (x,y)R2.

    Let ˉH, ˉF and ˉG denote the survival functions of (X,Y), X and Y, respectively. The previous formula leads to

    ˉH(x,y)=ˆC(ˉF(x),ˉG(y)), for all (x,y)R2.

    The function ˆC is called the survival copula. It is linked to C via the next formula

    ˆC(u,v)=u+v1+C(1u,1v), for all (u,v)[0,1]2.

    Remark that C and ˆC coincide with independent copula when X and Y are independent, that is,

    C(u,v)=ˆC(u,v)=Π(u,v)=uv, for all (u,v)[0,1]2.

    It is well-known that for any copula C and for all u,v[0,1],

    max(u+v1,0)C(u,v)min(u,v).

    previous bivariate functions W(u,v)=max(u+v1,0) and M(u,v)=min(u,v) are themselves copulas called Fréchet-Hoeffding bounds. For more on the construction of these bounds, see [13] and for more details on the notion of copula, we refer the interested reader to [38]

    This section presents the novelties of the paper including characterizations of partial dependencies enumerated in Definition 3 among two random variables contributed to the mixture model (2.3) using stochastic orders given in Subsection 2.3. The copula function which identifies completely (not regularly or partially), the dependency phenomenon in the mixture semiparametric model (2.8) is derived.

    Based on the mixture model (2.3), the magnitude the random variable X has is affected by that of the random variable Θ. The model (2.3) implies that F(x)=E[F(x;Θ)] where F(;θ) is the conditional cdf of X given Θ=θ. Thus the probability of X being smaller than x depends on the average of probabilities of X given Θ is less or equal than x where the average is taken over all possible values of Θ. For instance, F may be the income distribution in a population where Θ is the age of a randomly drawn individual. F may be, as another example, the lifetime distribution of an electrical used device so that Θ is the duration during which it has been inactive since the last time it has been in use. In such circumstances, characterizations of the dependencies between X and Θ and also a need for the associated copula function are considered to be significant. The association (or the dependence structure) X and Θ has can be assessed through the bivariate density function

    f(x,θ)=f(x|θ)dΛ(θ)=w(x;θ)fX(x)η(θ)λ(θ), (3.1)

    in which the statement inserted after the second identity is valid when Θ has an absolutely continuous cdf Λ with pdf λ. In (3.1), f(x|θ)=w(x,θ)η(θ)fX(x) is the conditional density of X given that Θ equals θ.

    Since the joint pdf (3.1) is a bivariate weighted distribution with original distribution g(x,θ)=fX(x)λ(θ) representing the case when X and Θ are independent, thus the strongest dependence concept between X and Θ follows from Theorem 1 in [16]. Formally,

     ifw(x,θ) is TP2(RR2) in (x,θ), then X and Θ are   PLRD (NLRD).

    Generally, in 2016, Izadkhah et al. [16] proved that under some sufficient conditions the partial dependencies given in Definition 3 are preserved under the transformation (X,Y)(Xw,Yw) in which (X,Y) has a joint pdf f(x,y) associated with the original distribution and (Xw,Yw) has a joint pdf fw(x,y)=w(x,y)E[w(X,Y)]f(x,y). In this paper, (X,Θ) is considered as the random pair with original distribution in which X and Θ have been assumed to be independent. However, our goal is not here to obtain sufficient condition(s) for preservation of a dependence structure under (X,Θ)(X,Θ). The first aim of the current study is to present some necessary and sufficient conditions for (X,Θ) to follow the dependence structures (i)–(v) in Definition 3. The equivalent conditions we will present to this end are particularly useful to obtain the dependency induced by the model (2.8) between X and Θ.

    Suppose that F1X is the right continuous inverse function of FX given by F1X(u)=inf{τ|FX(τ)u} for u[0,1]. Suppose that Uθ is a random variable contained in [0,1] having cdf

    Gθ(u)=u0w(F1X(y);θ)dy10w(F1X(y);θ)dy. (3.2)

    Therefore, the cdf of the mixture model (2.4) when F(x;θ)=xf(t;θ)dθ where f(t;θ) is as given in (2.2), is represented as

    F(x)=+F(x;θ)dΛ(θ)=+xw(t;θ)fX(t)dt+w(t;θ)fX(t)dtdΛ(θ)=+FX(x)0w(F1X(y);θ)dy10w(F1X(y);θ)dydΛ(θ)=+Gθ(FX(x))dΛ(θ). (3.3)

    The density function of X is also

    f(x)=+fX(x)gθ(FX(x))dΛ(θ), (3.4)

    where gθ() is the derivative (density) of Gθ(). Let w(;θ) be the weight function in the family of the weighted distributions (2.3), i.e. w(x;θ)=ξ(FX(x),θ) which is prevalently arisen with many statistical models. In such a case the cdf Gθ in (3.2) does not depend on FX and plays the role of generator of the cdf of X as revealed in (3.3). In fact, in the cases where a semiparametric family as considered in Subsection 2.2 is given, we will have Gθ(u)=d(u,θ).

    There are studies conducted in the literature where the dependencies in the pair (X,Y) in Definition 3 are characterized by some stochastic orders, namely, likelihood ratio order (lr), hazard rate order (hr), reversed hazard rate order (rh) and usual stochastic order (st) of conditional random variables [Y|X=x],[Y|X>x] and [Y|Xx] (see, for instance, Lemma 1 in [16]).

    The next result identifies necessary and sufficient conditions for the dependency structures in Definition 3 in the random pair (X,Θ) based on the generator (3.2). The class of weighted distributions corresponding to the semiparametric class of distributions can be also considered as a typical application. The distinctive dependencies given in Definition 3 are characterized with stochastic orders of Uθ with respect to θ as follows:

    Theorem 4. The following assertions hold:

    (i) X and Θ are PLRD (NLRD) if, and only if, Uθ1lr(lr)Uθ2 for all θ1θ2χ.

    (ii) X and Θ are RCSI (RCSD) whenever Uθ1hr(hr)Uθ2 for all θ1θ2χ.

    (iii) X and Θ are LCSD (LCSI) whenever Uθ1rh(rh)Uθ2 for all θ1θ2χ.

    (iv) X is SI (SD) in Θ if, and only if, Uθ1st(st)Uθ2 for all θ1θ2χ.

    Proof.

    (i) By virtue of (3.2), Uθ has the pdf

    gθ(u)=w(F1X(y);θ)10w(F1X(y);θ)dy.

    It is known that X given Θ=θ has pdf

    f(x|θ)=w(x;θ)fX(x)η(θ)=w(x;θ)fX(x)10w(F1X(y);θ)dy=gθ(FX(x))fX(x).

    Notice that X and Θ are PLRD (NLRD) whenever f(xθ) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,θ). On the other hand, it is apparently evident that Uθ1lr(lr)Uθ2 for all θ1θ2 if, and only if, g(uθ) is TP2 (RR2) in (u,θ)[0,1]×χ. By the consequences B.2. and B.3. of Definition B.1. in [34], the last property holds if, and only if, g(FX(x)|θ)fX(x) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,θ)R×χ. The proof of (i) is complete.

    (ii) Let us write for the joint cdf of X and Θ

    ˉF(x,θ)=+θxw(x;θ)fX(x)η(θ)λ(θ)dxdθ=+θ1FX(x)w(F1X(y);θ)η(θ)λ(θ)dydθ=θ(1G(FX(x)|θ))λ(θ)dθ=RˉG(FX(x)|θ)λ(θ)I[θ>θ]dθ.

    Note that Uθ1hr(hr)Uθ2 for all θ1θ2χ if, and only if, ˉGθ(u) is TP2 (RR2) in (u,θ)[0,1]×χ which further implies that ˉGθ(FX(x)) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,θ)R×χ. We know that λ(θ)I[θ>θ] is TP2 in (θ,θ). Therefore, by the well-known general composition theorem of [22], ˉF(x,θ) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,θ)R×χ. This completes the proof of (ii).

    (iii) The proof is similar to (ii).

    (iv) It is plain to see that Uθ1st(st)Uθ2 for all θ1θ2χ if, and only if, Gθ1(u)()Gθ2(u), for all θ1θ2χ and for all u[0,1], or equivalently, Gθ1(FX(x))()Gθ2(FX(x)), for all θ1θ2χ and for all xR. To establish the SI (SD) property, we first observe that

    ˉF(x|θ)=xw(x;θ)fX(x)η(θ)dx=1FX(x)w(F1X(y);θ)η(θ)dy=1FX(x)0w(F1X(y);θ)η(θ)dy=1Gθ(FX(x)).

    The proof of (iv) is complete as a direct consequence of Definition 3.2 (ii).

    Remark 5. To establish the PQD (NQD) property, using the statement given for the joint survival function of X and Θ in the proof of Theorem 4(ii), we conclude that X and Θ are PQD (NQD) if, and only if, E[ˉGΘ(u)Θ>θ]()E[ˉGΘ(u)], holds for all u[0,1] and for all θR.

    Examples of reputable statistical mixture (or frailty) models is taken into consideration in Appendix to construct the distribution function (3.2) and examine the correctness of the results reported in Theorem 4 (see Examples A.1–A.10 in Appendix).

    Remark 6. It is generally evident that the generator distribution function Gθ in (3.2) does not depend on the baseline distribution function FX when considering the mixture model of a classical semiparametric family of distributions presented in Section 2. In this case, the distribution function Gθ in (3.2) and the generator of the underlying semiparametric distribution in (2.2) actually coincide.

    The study of copulas in a variety of mixture models and also analysis of joint frailty-copula models have been recently considered (see, e.g., [3,5,10,28,36,46]). For evaluating the influence the mixing random variable Θ has on variation of the resultant random variable X in the weighted mixture model (2.3), identification of the partial dependence structures enumerated in Definition 3 between Θ and X has its limitations. This is because there may be situations where these dependencies are not fulfilled. Drawing the copula function out is, therefore, important as the copula is a principal reference to provide a comprehensive analysis of dependency in the pair (X,Θ). Since X follows a mixture model, thus the implied copula function is supposed to be mixture-based.

    To obtain the mixture-based copula function associated with the pair (X,Θ) specified in the mixture weighted model (2.4), we recall the notion of copula function.

    The joint distribution function of (X,Θ) is needed. From (1.4), the joint distribution function is

    F(x,θ)=θxw(x,θ)fX(x)η(θ)λ(θ)dxdθ=θλ(θ)η(θ)(xw(x,θ)fX(x)dx)dθ=θλ(θ)η(θ)(FX(x)0w(F1X(y),θ)dy)dθ.

    Applying Sklar's theorem for distribution functions, one obtains the copula function of the joint distribution of X and Θ, as a result

    C(u,v)=F(F1X(u),Λ1(v))=Λ1(v)λ(θ)η(θ)FX(F1X(u))0w(F1X(y);θ)dydθ=Λ1(v)λ(θ)Gθ(FX(F1X(u)))dθ=vE[GΘ(FX(F1X(u)))|ΘΛ1(v)],forallu,v[0,1]. (3.5)

    On the other hand, the joint survival function of (X,Θ) as given in the proof of Theorem 4 (ii) is

    ˉF(x,θ)=θλ(θ)η(θ)(1FX(x)w(F1X(y),θ)dy)dθ.

    Applying Sklar's theorem for survival functions, the survival copula of X and Θ is derived as

    ˆC(u,v)=ˉF(ˉF1X(u),ˉΛ1(v))=ˉF(F1X(1u),Λ1(1v))=+Λ1(1v)λ(θ)η(θ)1FX(F1X(1u))w(F1X(y);θ)dydθ=+Λ1(1v)λ(θ)(1Gθ(FX(F1X(1u))))dθ=v(1E[GΘ(FX(F1X(1u)))|Θ>Λ1(1v)]),forallu,v[0,1]. (3.6)

    However, the copula function C in (3.5) and the survival copula ˆC in (3.6) are connected to each other as ˆC(u,v)=u+v1+C(1u,1v) [38]. In mixture model of the underlying semiparametric family of distributions which introduced and described in Section 2, the derivation of the copula function (3.5) and/or the survival copula function (3.6) is more abstract. To this end, for w(x,θ)=ξ(FX(x),θ) one has

    FX(x)=E[d(FX(x),Θ)]=+d(FX(x),θ)dΛ(θ),

    from which we can define

    K(u)=FX(F1X(u))=+d(u,θ)dΛ(θ)=10d(u,Λ1(y))dy.

    To derive an explicit and attainable expression for the composition function FXoF1X in (3.5) and (3.6), we use the fact that the function K1 and the function FXoF1X are identical. Therefore, in view of (3.5),

    C(u,v)=Λ1(v)λ(θ)Gθ(FX(F1X(u)))dθ=Λ1(v)λ(θ)d(K1(u),θ)dθ=v0d(K1(u),Λ1(y))dy,u,v[0,1]. (3.7)

    The survival copula is obtained by (3.6) as

    ˆC(u,v)=+Λ1(1v)λ(θ)(1Gθ(FX(F1X(1u))))dθ=+Λ1(1v)λ(θ)d(K1(1u),θ)dθ=v0d(K1(1u),Λ1(1y))dy,u,v[0,1]. (3.8)

    Remark 7. To extract the copula function associated with mixture models in Subsections 2.1 and 2.2, as by the Sklar's theorem the copula function does not depend on the marginal distributions of X and Θ, thus it suffices to move forward along an arbitrary continuous distribution for Θ. The marginal distribution function of X is then obtained in the spirit of (3.3) as FX(x)=E[GΘ(FX(x))]=+Gθ(FX(x))dΛ(θ) where FX is a given (baseline) cdf where the expectation is taking with respect to the cdf of Θ.

    Remark 8. That the implied copula function (3.5) and also the copula function (3.7) have a closed expression depends on whether the function K(u) has a closed form. It also depends on whether the integrations (3.5) and (3.7) are algebraically solvable. In general, the equation K(u)=y used to determine the inverse function K1 may have an exact solution or be inherently a transcendental equation. In the latter case, the desired copula function has no closed nice expression.

    Remark 9. The approach proposed in this subsection to derive the copula function assumed that X and Θ in both of the mixture models (2.3) and (2.8) are continuous random variables which is a basic assumption for uniqueness of the copula function. In spite of that, there may be situations where Θ is a discrete random variable where the uniqueness of copula is a b‌r‌i‌t‌t‌l‌e assumption. To describe such a situation, consider the random sequence X1,X2, of independent and identical random variables, then the extreme order statistic X1:N=min{X1,,XN} follows the proportional hazard rates model and the extreme order statistic XN:N=max{X1,,XN} follows the proportional reversed hazard rates model where N is the mixing component that needs to be counted. Methods for finding copulas in such cases have been developed in the literature recently (see, e.g., [1,44]).

    Examples have been presented in Appendix to derive the copula function in some well-known frailty models (see Examples A.11–A.14 in Appendix).

    In general, the model (2.4) is applicable in a broader setting when knowing that there are always some weight functions that relates two densities. Let us assume that the random pair (X,Y) has a joint density f(x,y) (whenever it exists) where X and Y are continues univariate random variables following marginal densities fX(x) and fY(y), respectively. Denote by f(x|y) and g(y|x) the conditional densities of of X given Y=y and that of Y given X=x, respectively. It is well-known that

    fX(x)=f(x|y)fY(y)dy (3.9)

    and

    fY(y)=g(y|x)fX(x)dx (3.10)

    To exploit (3.9) and (3.10) to an advantage in terms of the model (2.4), one rewrites them as follows:

    fX(x)=fZ(x)w(x;y)η(y)fY(y)dy=fZ(x)w(x;y)fY(y)dy, (3.11)

    where w(x;y)=f(x|y)/fZ(x) and η(y)=w(x;y)fZ(x)dx=1 where fZ is the pdf of Z which is assumed to be a random variable with an absolutely continuous distribution function. In parallel, we analogously have

    fY(y)=fW(y)w(y;x)η(y)fX(x)dx=fW(y)w(y;x)fX(x)dx, (3.12)

    where w(y;x)=g(yx)/fW(y) and η(y)=w(y;x)fX(y)dy=1 where fW is the pdf of W which is assumed to be a random variable with an absolutely continuous distribution function. It is noticeable that (3.11) applies when there exists a random variable Z for which (XY=y) is equal in distribution with Zw(;y) which is the weighted version of Z with y-indexed weight function w(;y). The representation (3.12) also applies when there exists a random variable W for which (YX=x) is equal in distribution with Ww(;x) which is the weighted version of W with x-indexed weight function w(;x). For instance, in light of the results of the paper, the bivariate distributions for which there exists a random variable Z with cdf FZ and a function ϕ(;y)0 such that

    P(Xx|Y=y)=ϕ(FZ(x);y)

    and the bivariate distributions for which there exists a random variable W with cdf FW and a function ψ(;x)0 that fulfills the relation

    P(Yy|X=x)=ψ(FW(y);x), (3.13)

    are applicable and the formula (3.7) gives the copula function of (X,Y) in such cases. There are some data sets whose observations are distribution functions rather than the single numerical point value of classical data [45]. Consider a situation where the regression of FZ(Y) on g(X) is carried out and the linear form

    FW(Yi)=α+βg(Xi)+εi,i=1,2,,n

    is under consideration in which εiN(0,σ2) and α and β are two real-valued parameters and g is a proper function. It is ordinarily assumed that Xi and εi are independent. To characterize the copula function of (X,Y) the approach proposed in this paper can be adopted. We have

    P(Yy|X=x)=P(F1Z(α+βg(X))y|X=x)=P(εiFW(y)αβg(X)|X=x)=Φ(σ(FW(y)αβg(x)))=ψα,β,σ(FW(y);x),

    where Φ is the cdf of standard normal distribution and ψα,β,σ is the function fulfilling the identity (3.13).

    It is noticeable that given the value of y the weight w(x;y) is a weight function on the pdf of X and on the other hand given the value of x the weight w(y;x) is a weight function onpdf of Y. Therefore, the realization y from Y and the realization x from X play the role of the parameter θ in the mixture weighted distribution (2.4). The model is, therefore, can be applied in the context of any bivariate distribution. The random pair (X,Y) with baseline Z and the random pair (Y,X) with baseline W can be considered in place of (X,Θ) so that the selection of distribution of Z and the selection of distribution of W are at the disposal of the model. The objective of putting (X,Y) in the framework of the mixture model (2.4) is to have a representation of the associated copula function in situations where it does not have a closed form or situations in which the Sklar's theorem does not provide the expression of the copula function.

    In this paper, we have achieved two goals. Firstly, we have established necessary and sufficient conditions for the partial dependence structures PLRD (NLRD), RCSI (RCSD), LCSD (LCSI), SI (SD) and PQD (NQD) with respect to the stochastic orders lr, hr, rh and st between two parameter-indexed copies of a random variable from a baseline generator distribution (see, cdf (3.2)). It was shown that the strongest dependence property holds if the parameter-indexed weight function w(x,θ) has a regular form that is TP2 for positive dependence (or RR2 for alternative negative dependence). It is shown that the situation described in this theorem is applicable in the context of proportional hazards (reversed), proportional odds, upper (lower) tail, residual life (inactivity time) models, and scale change model when the model is mixed and the parameter for the individual in the resulting samples is randomly drawn. The weaker dependence structures are also characterized in the mixed model of residual lifetime (inactivity time) and the mixed model of scale change by several known aging notions.

    Secondly, since each bivariate distribution function induces a particular copula function, the copula function of the random pair was derived from the mixture (unobservable) and the resultant (overall population). Such an investigation seems to be important and plays an essential role in the literature to focus on further aspects of dependencies using the implicit copula functions. It was found that in some semiparametric distribution families, including the very well-known proportional hazard and proportional reverse hazard models, the copula functions have explicit closed forms.

    In the future study of this work, mixture-based copula functions of weighted distributions in high (more than two) dimensions will be considered and also possible extensions of the results of this paper to the multivariate case will be gone over. Further analysis of dependence characteristics using the derived bivariate copula function and the presented multivariate copula function is performed. The authors are quite optimistic about the goal of the current study, which will be pursued by many researchers in this field.

    This work is supported by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2022/392), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

    There is no conflict of interest declared by the authors.

    Example A.1 (Proportional hazards model with random effects). Suppose that w(x;θ)=ˉFθ1(x),θ>0. It is seen that (2/θx)ln(w(x;θ))=hX(x)<0 for all x0 and θ>0 where hX is the hazard rate function of X given by hX(x)=f(x)/ˉF(x). Hence, w(x;θ) is RR2 in (x,θ) and thus from Theorem 3.1, we conclude that X with sf E[ˉFΘX(x)] and Θ admit the Nlrd property. In addition, to determine the distribution of Uθ, (3.2) provides that Gθ(u)=1(1u)θ which is the cdf of Beta(1,θ). It is trivially apparent that Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2 by which the result of Theorem 4 (i) is validated.

    Example A.2 (Proportional reversed hazards model with random effects). Suppose that w(x;θ)=Fθ1(x),θ>0. It is obtained that (2/θx)ln(w(x;θ))=˜hX(x)>0 for all x0 and θ>0 where ˜hX is the reversed hazard rate function of X, defined as ˜hX(x)=f(x)/F(x).Hence, w(x;θ) is TP2 in (x,θ) which implies that X with cdf E[FΘX(x)] and Θ have the PLRD property. Furthermore, to identify the distribution of Uθ, (3.2) gives Gθ(u)=uθ which is the cdf of Beta(θ,1). It can simply be checked that Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2 fulfilling the result of Theorem 4 (i).

    Example A.3 (Proportional odds model with random tilt parameter). Let us assume that w(x;θ)=1/(1ˉθˉF(x))2,θ>0 with ˉθ=1θ. It can be seen that (2/θx)ln(w(x;θ))=2fX(x)/(1ˉθˉFX(x))2>0 for all x0 and for all θ>0. Therefore, w(x;θ) is TP2 in (x,θ) and therefore, X with cdf E[FX(x)/(1ˉΘˉFX(x))2] and Θ satisfy the PLRD property. To characterize the distribution of Uθ by (3.2), we have Gθ(u)=u/(1ˉθ(1u)). The stochastic ordering relation Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2 holds true and Theorem 4 (i) is valid.

    Example A.4 (Upper tail mixture model). Let us assume that w(x;θ)=I[x>F1X(θ)] where θ[0,1]. For all x1x2 and for all θ1θ2[0,1], by considering all possible ordering arrangements between x1 and x2 together with θ1 and θ2 it holds that I[x1>F1X(θ1)]I[x2>F1X(θ2)]I[x1>F1X(θ2)]I[x2>F1X(θ1)]. It thus follows that w(x;θ)=I[x>F1X(θ)] is TP2 in (x,θ) and thus, X with pdf fX(x)FX(x)0(1θ)dΛ(θ) and Θ fulfill the PLRD structure. The distribution of Uθ in (3.2) is determined as

    Gθ(u)=uθ1θI[u>θ],

    and thus Uθ has uniform distribution on [θ,1]. The density function of Uθ is gθ(u)=I[θu1]/(1θ) which for all u1u2 and for all θθ2 satisfies

    gθ1(u1)gθ2(u2)=I[θ1u11]I[θ2u21](1θ1)(1θ2)I[θ2u11]I[θ1u21](1θ1)(1θ2)=gθ2(u1)gθ1(u2),

    thus, gθ(u) is TP2 in (u,θ)[0,1]2. Hence, Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0θ1<θ2[0,1] which confirms Theorem 4 (i).

    Example A.5 (Lower tail mixture model) Assume that w(x;θ)=I[xF1X(θ)] where θ[0,1]. It can be observed as previous case that w(x;θ)=I[xF1X(θ)] is TP2 in (x,θ) and thus it follows that that X with pdf fX(x)1FX(x)(1/θ)dΛ(θ) and Θ are PLRD. In this case, the distribution of Uθ is Gθ(u)=min{u/θ,1} and thus Uθ has uniform distribution on [0,θ]. The associated density function is gθ(u)=I[0uθ]/θ. It is readily seen again that gθ(u) is TP2 in (u,θ)[0,1]2. Hence, Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2 which fulfils Theorem 4 (i).

    In the following mixture models unlike the foregoing cases where the generator distribution Gθ is independent of FX, they depend on FX.

    Example A.6 (Right truncation mixture model). Assume that w(x;θ)=I[x>θ] [28]. For all x1x2 and for all θ1θ2, by considering all possible ordering arrangements between x1 and x2 together with θ1 and θ2 one has I[x1>θ1]I[x2>θ2]I[x1>θ2]I[x2>θ1]. Hence, w(x;θ)=I[x>θ] is TP2 in (x,θ) and from thus, X with pdf fX(x)x(1/ˉFX(θ))dΛ(θ) and Θ satisfy the PLRD property. To identify the distribution of Uθ as given in (3.2), we get

    Gθ(u)=umin{u,FX(θ)}ˉFX(θ),

    and thus Uθ has uniform distribution on [FX(θ),1] provided that FX(θ)<1. The density function of Uθ is gθ(u)=I[FX(θ)u1]/(ˉFX(θ)) which for all u1u2 and for all θ1θ2 satisfies

    gθ1(u1)gθ2(u2)=I[u1>FX(θ1)]I[u2>FX(θ2)]ˉFX(θ1)ˉFX(θ2)I[u1>FX(θ2)]I[u2>FX(θ1)]ˉFX(θ1)ˉFX(θ2)=gθ2(u1)gθ1(u2),

    which establishes that gθ(u) is TP2 in (u,θ). Hence, the stochastic ordering relation Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2 holds true which is an indication of the correctness of Theorem 4 (i).

    Example A.7 (Left truncated mixture model). Let w(x;θ)=I[xθ]. It is then proved that w(x;θ)=I[xθ] is TP2 in (x,θ) and therefore, X with pdf fX(x)+x(1/FX(θ))dΛ(θ) and Θ have the PLRD property. To characterize the distribution of Uθ in (3.2), one realizes that Gθ(u)=min{u,FX(θ)}/FX(θ) and thus Uθ follows uniform distribution on [0,FX(θ)] provided that FX(θ)>0. In this case, the density function of Uθ is gθ(u)=I[0uFX(θ)]/(FX(θ)). It can be shown, as in the previous case, that gθ(u) is TP2 in (u,θ). Hence, Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2 which is in agreement with Theorem 3.2 (i).

    Example A.8 (The residual life mixture model). Let w(x;θ)=fX(x+θ)/fX(x) in which θ is a certain survival time [25]. It can be demonstrated that w(x;θ)=fX(x+θ)/fX(x) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,θ) if, and only if, X has a log-convex (log-concave) density function which concludes that X and Θ have the PLRD (NLRD) property. The distribution of Uθ in (3.2) for the cdf FX with FX(0)=0 and FX(θ)<1 is derived as

    Gθ(u)=u0(fX(F1X(x)+θ))/(fX(F1X(x)))dx10(fX(F1X(x)+θ))/(fX(F1X(x)))dx=FX(θ+F1X(u))FX(θ)ˉFX(θ)=Fθ(F1X(u)),u[0,1],

    where Fθ is the cdf of Xθ=(XθX>θ) with FX(θ)<1. The random variable Xθ is the residual lifetime, after the time θ, of a lifetime unit whose length of life is X. The density function of Uθ is

    gθ(u)=fX(θ+F1X(u))fX(F1X(u))ˉFX(θ),u[0,FX(F1X(1)θ)].

    It can be seen that gθ(u) is TP2 (RR2) in (u,θ) whenever X has a log-convex (log-concave) density function which further establishes that Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2. This is a confirmation for the result of Theorem 3.2 (i).

    Example A.9 (The average inactivity time model). Let w(x;θ)=fX(θx)/fX(x) where θ is the time of observation of failure [27]. It is observed in this case that w(x;θ)=fX(θx)/fX(x) is TP2 (resp. RR2) in (x,θ) if, and only if, X has a log-concave (resp. log-convex) density function and thus X and Θ have the PLRD (NLRD) property. The distribution of Uθ in (3.2) for the cdf FX with FX(0)=0 and FX(θ)>0 is derived as

    Gθ(u)=u0(fX(θF1X(x)))/(fX(F1X(x)))dx10(fX(θF1X(x)))/(fX(F1X(x)))dx=FX(θ)FX(θF1X(u))FX(θ)=F(θ)(F1X(u)),u[0,1],

    where F(θ) is the cdf of X(θ)=(θXXθ) with FX(θ)>0. The random variable X(θ) is the inactivity time of a lifetime unit with lifespan X at the time θ (see [17,23,24,29,31]). The density function of Uθ is thus obtained as

    gθ(u)=fX(θF1X(u))fX(F1X(u))FX(θ),u[0,FX(θ)].

    As a function of u and of θ, gθ(u) is TP2 (resp. RR2) in (u,θ) whenever X has a log-concave (log-convex) density function which holds if, and only if, Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2. The result of Theorem 4 (i) is once again confirmed and validated.

    Example A.10 (Scale change mixture model). Let w(x;θ)=fX(θx)/fX(x) where θ>0 [33]. From Definition 2.3(2) in [7], the weight w(x;θ)=fX(θx)/fX(x) is TP2 (RR2) in (x,θ) if, and only if, X has a decreasing (resp. increasing) proportional likelihood ratio and thus X and Θ satisfy the PLRD (NLRD) property. The cdf of Uθ in (3.2) when FX(0)=0 is obtained as

    Gθ(u)=u0(fX(θF1X(x)))/(fX(F1X(x)))dx10(fX(θF1X(x)))/(fX(F1X(x)))dx=FX(θF1X(u))FX(θF1X(1)).

    The associated density function is

    gθ(u)=fX(θF1X(u))fX(F1X(u))FX(θF1X(1)),u[0,1].

    We see that gθ(u) is TP2 (RR2) in (u,θ) whenever X has decreasing (increasing) proportional likelihood ratio which holds if, and only if, Uθ1lrUθ2 for all 0<θ1<θ2 which fulfills the result of Theorem 4 (i) again.

    Example A.11 (Proportional hazards model). The generator of the semiparametric distribution in this case as recognized in Section 2 is d(u,θ)=1(1u)θ with θ>0. Let us assume that Θ has exponential distribution with mean one. It is seen that K(u)=ln(1u)/(1ln(1u)) and thus K1(u)=1exp{u/(1u)} for all u(0,1). From (3.7), since Λ1(y)=ln(1y), thus we can get

    C(u,v)=v0(1(1K1(u))Λ1(y))dy=v0(1(1y)u1u)dy=v+(1u)((1v)11u1),forallu,v[0,1].

    Example A.12 (Proportional reversed hazards model). The generator of the semiparametric distribution in this case as characterized in Section 2 is d(u,θ)=uθ with θ>0. As in Example 4.1 we assume again that Θ has exponential distribution with mean one. One has K(u)=1/(1ln(u)) and it follows that K1(u)=exp{(u1)/u} for all u(0,1). From (3.7) one obtains

    C(u,v)=v0(K1(u))Λ1(y))dy=v0(1y)1uudy=u(1(1v)1u),  forallu,v[0,1].

    Example A.13 (Upper tail mixture model). The generator d in this case is d(u,θ)=(uθ)I[u>θ]/(1θ) with θ[0,1]. We assume that Θ has beta distribution with density function λ(θ)=2(1θ). Hence, Λ1(y)=11y. It is seen that K(u)=u2 and thus K1(u)=u for all u(0,1). By substituting in (3.7), the copula function is identified as

    C(u,v)=v0u(11y)1(11y)I[u>(11y)]dy=min{v,1(1u)2}0(1+u11y)dy=2(1u)(1min{v,1(1u)2}1)+min{v,1(1u)2}.

    Example A.14 (Lower tail mixture model). In this case we have d(u,θ)=min{u/θ,1} for θ[0,1]. Suppose that Θ has beta distribution with density function λ(θ)=2θ and thus Λ1(y)=y. We also see that K(u)=2uu2 and thus K1(u)=11u for all u(0,1). By using (3.7),

    C(u,v)=v0min{K1(u)Λ1(y),1}dy=v0min{11uy,1}dy=(11u)(2v1+1u)++min{v,1(11u)2},

    where a+=max{0,a}.



    [1] L. A. Hall, S. Bagchi-Sen, A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry, Technovation, 22 (2002), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00016-5 doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00016-5
    [2] G. J. Prah, Innovation and economic performance: the role of financial development, Quant. Financ. Econ., 6 (2022), 696–721. https://doi.org/10.3934/qfe.2022031 doi: 10.3934/qfe.2022031
    [3] Y. F. Wang, J. Liu, X. R. Yang, M. Shi, R. Ran, The mechanism of green finance's impact on enterprise' sustainable green innovation, Green Financ., 5 (2023), 452–478. https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2023018 doi: 10.3934/gf.2023018
    [4] K. J. Klassen, J. A. Pittman, M. P. Reed, S. Fortin, A cross-national comparison of R&D expenditure decisions: tax incentives and financial constraints, Contemp. Account. Res., 21 (2004), 639–680. https://doi.org/10.1506/cf2e-huvc-gafy-5h56 doi: 10.1506/cf2e-huvc-gafy-5h56
    [5] K. Guo, X. M. Guo, J. Zhang, Financial asset allocation duality and enterprise upgrading: empirical evidence from the Chinese A-share market, Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., 10 (2023), 237. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01683-1 doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-01683-1
    [6] S. Orazi, L. B. Martinez, H. P. Vigier, Determinants and evolution of financial inclusion in Latin America: a demand side analysis, Quant. Financ. Econ., 7 (2023), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.3934/qfe.2023010 doi: 10.3934/qfe.2023010
    [7] Z. H. Li, B. Mo, H. Nie, Time and frequency dynamic connectedness between cryptocurrencies and financial assets in China, Int. Rev. Econo. Finance, 86 (2023), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.01.015 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2023.01.015
    [8] Y. Liu, Z. H. Li, M. R. Xu, The influential factors of financial cycle spillover: evidence from China, Emerg. Mark. Financ. Tr., 56 (2020), 1336–1350. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2019.1658076 doi: 10.1080/1540496x.2019.1658076
    [9] Z. H. Li, J. H. Zhong, Impact of economic policy uncertainty shocks on China's financial conditions, Financ. Res. Lett., 35 (2020), 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.101303 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2019.101303
    [10] I. Yarba, A. D. Yassa, Does stock market listing boost or impede corporate investment, Borsa Istanb. Rev., 22 (2022), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.bir.2021.04.001
    [11] Y. Q. Gao, Z. S. Wang, K. H. Wang, R. A. I. Zhang, Y. C. Lu, Effect of big data on enterprise financialization: evidence from China's SMEs, Technol. Soc., 75 (2023), 102351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102351 doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102351
    [12] Y. H. Huang, L. Sun, T. B. Ger, An analysis of enterprise resource planning systems and key determinants using the Delphi method and an analytic hierarchy process, Data Sci. Financ. Econ., 3 (2023), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3934/dsfe.2023010 doi: 10.3934/dsfe.2023010
    [13] J. H. Ma, Z. H. Li, Measuring China's urban digital economy, Natl. Account. Rev., 4 (2022), 329–361. https://doi.org/10.3934/nar.2022019 doi: 10.3934/nar.2022019
    [14] Z. Li, H. Chen, B. Mo, Can digital finance promote urban innovation? Evidence from China, Borsa Istanb. Rev., 23 (2023), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.10.006 doi: 10.1016/j.bir.2022.10.006
    [15] Z. Li, G. Liao, K. Albitar, Does corporate environmental responsibility engagement affect firm value? The mediating role of corporate innovation, Bus. Strategy Environ., 29 (2019), 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2416 doi: 10.1002/bse.2416
    [16] J. R. Brown, B. C. Petersen, Cash holdings and R&D smoothing, J. Corp. Financ., 17 (2011), 694–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2010.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2010.01.003
    [17] D. Liu, Z. Y. Li, H. B. He, W. X. Hou, The determinants of R&D smoothing with asset sales: Evidence from R&D-intensive firms in China, Int. Rev. Econ. Financ., 75 (2021), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.03.013 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2021.03.013
    [18] J. Duan, T. T. Liu, X. R. Yang, H. Yang, Y. W. Gao, Financial asset allocation and green innovation, Green Financ., 5 (2023), 512–537. https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2023020 doi: 10.3934/gf.2023020
    [19] M. Shugurov, International cooperation on climate research and green technologies in the face of sanctions: the case of Russia, Green Financ., 5 (2023), 102–153. https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2023006 doi: 10.3934/gf.2023006
    [20] L. Liu, M. Liu, How does the digital economy affect industrial eco-efficiency? Empirical evidence from China, Data Sci. Financ. Econ., 2 (2022), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.3934/dsfe.2022019 doi: 10.3934/dsfe.2022019
    [21] K. F. Xu, Y. Liu, Z. Y. Liu, Dynamic game model for R&D strategy in high-tech enterprises, J. Differ. Equ. Appl., 29 (2023), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236198.2023.2182152 doi: 10.1080/10236198.2023.2182152
    [22] Z. H. Li, J. H. Zhu, J. J. He, The effects of digital financial inclusion on innovation and entrepreneurship: A network perspective, Electron. Res. Arch., 30 (2022), 4697–4715. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2022238 doi: 10.3934/era.2022238
    [23] M. Hong, J. J. He, K. X. Zhang, Z. D. Guo, Does digital transformation of enterprises help reduce the cost of equity capital, Math. Biosci. Eng., 20 (2023), 6498–6516. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2023280 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023280
    [24] Z. H. Li, Z. M. Huang, Y. Y. Su, New media environment, environmental regulation and corporate green technology innovation: evidence from China, Energy Econ., 119 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106545 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106545
    [25] D. Sheng, O. Guyot, Corporate governance in Chinese manufacturing sector: ownership structure, monitoring and firms' earning quality, Natl. Account. Rev., 5 (2023), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.3934/nar.2023024 doi: 10.3934/nar.2023024
    [26] Y. Wen, Y. Xu, Statistical monitoring of economic growth momentum transformation: empirical study of Chinese provinces, AIMS Math., 8 (2023), 24825–24847. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.20231266 doi: 10.3934/math.20231266
    [27] Ö. Orhangazi, Financialisation and capital accumulation in the non-financial corporate sector: A theoretical and empirical investigation on the US economy: 1973–2003, Camb. J. Econ., 32 (2008), 863–886. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben009 doi: 10.1093/cje/ben009
    [28] W. Lazonick, D. J. Teece, Introduction: management innovation–Essays in the spirit of Alfred D. Chandler, Jr, Ind. Corp. Change, 19 (2010), 295–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq014 doi: 10.1093/icc/dtq014
    [29] Z. J. Xie, J. Du, Y. C. Wu, Does financialization of non-financial corporations promote the persistence of innovation: evidence from A-share listed manufacturing corporations in China, Eur. Bus. Rev., 12 (2022), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-021-00193-x doi: 10.1007/s40821-021-00193-x
    [30] Z. Li, C. Yang, Z. Huang, How does the fintech sector react to signals from central bank digital currencies, Financ. Res. Lett., 50 (2022), 103308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103308 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103308
    [31] Z. H. Li, H. Dong, C. Floros, A. Charemis, P. Failler, Re-examining Bitcoin volatility: a CAViaR-based Approach, Emerg. Markets Financ. Trade, 58 (2022), 1320–1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2021.1873127 doi: 10.1080/1540496x.2021.1873127
    [32] Z. Li, L. Chen, H. Dong, What are bitcoin market reactions to its-related events, Int. Rev. Econ. Financ., 73 (2021), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2020.12.020 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2020.12.020
    [33] H. J. Kim, P. Sohn, J. Y. Seo, The capital structure adjustment through debt financing based on various macroeconomic conditions in Korean market, Invest. Econ., 74 (2015), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inveco.2015.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.inveco.2015.11.005
    [34] S. Y. Huang, X. Liu, D. Lou, C. Polk, The booms and busts of beta arbitrage, Manage. Sci., 2023. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4929 doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.4929
    [35] Z. Q. Zhang, Z. Su, F. Tong, Does digital transformation restrain corporate financialization? Evidence from China, Financ. Res. Lett., 56 (2023), 104152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104152 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2023.104152
    [36] W. Li, L. H. Chen, S. He, The effect of enterprise financialization on green innovation: evidence from Chinese A-share non-financial listed enterprises, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 30 (2023), 56802–56817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26377-8 doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-26377-8
    [37] C. H. Xu, H. K. Zhang, M. S. Wang, A. Iqbal, Investigating the relationship between entity financialization, managers' incentives, and enterprise's innovation: fresh evidence from China, Front. Psychol., 12 (2022), 810294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.810294 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.810294
    [38] S. Kim, H. Lee, J. Kim, Divergent effects of external financing on technology innovation activity: Korean evidence, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 106 (2016), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.002
    [39] H. Y. Gao, H. Y. Wen, X. J. Wang, Pandemic effect on corporate financial asset holdings: precautionary or return-chasing, Res. Int. Bus. Financ., 62 (2022), 101750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101750 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101750
    [40] H. Tan, X. H. Zhang, L. L. Zeng, Operating leverage, equity incentive, and enterprise research and development investment, Sustainability, 15 (2023), 7023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097023 doi: 10.3390/su15097023
    [41] Y. Liu, L. M. Chen, H. Luo, Y. Z. Liu, Y. X. Wen, The impact of intellectual property rights protection on green innovation: A quasi-natural experiment based on the pilot policy of the Chinese intellectual property court, Math. Biosci. Eng., 21 (2024), 2587–2607. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2024114 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024114
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Sida Lin, Jinlong Yuan, Zichao Liu, Tao Zhou, An Li, Chuanye Gu, Kuikui Gao, Jun Xie, Distributionally robust parameter estimation for nonlinear fed-batch switched time-delay system with moment constraints of uncertain measured output data, 2024, 32, 2688-1594, 5889, 10.3934/era.2024272
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1556) PDF downloads(79) Cited by(6)

Figures and Tables

Tables(5)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog