# How Does Fiscal Policy Affect Bank Credit? Evidence from China

Authors: Huan Yan; Weiguo Xiao; Qi Deng; Sisi Xiong
Journal: Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Using a set of Chinese economic data and a structural vector autoregression (SVAR) model, this paper investigates the transmission channels of fiscal policy to bank credit in China. We find that increases in tax revenue can increase bank credit through external financing premium channel, collateral channel, and bank liquidity channel. We also find that increases in government spending can reduce bank credit through bank liquidity channel and increase bank credit through external financing premium channel and collateral channel.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction and Literature Review

Since China entered the new normal of economic development, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has carried out counter-cyclical macroeconomic regulatory through continuous innovation on monetary policies, in an aim to keep the market liquidity at a sufficient level. However, bank credit is subject to multiple constraints on both sides of supply and demand, and abundant market liquidity cannot be effectively transmitted to the real economy. Although China’s monetary policy still has more room for maneuver than that of advanced economies, the marginal effect of monetary policy continues to decline, and the negative effect is increasingly prominent. Thus, exploring the impact of fiscal policy on the credit market has attracted great attention from scholars and policymakers.Theoretically, fiscal policy can affect bank credit through the interest rates, thereby posing an impact on the transmission of monetary policy. The inverse relationship between the fiscal policy and bank credit implied in classical theory has not been widely supported by empirical research [1]. On the contrary, much empirical evidence shows that the two change in the same direction. For instance, Barro [2] and Treasury [3] are the first to point out the contradiction between theoretical predictions and empirical data. The empirical evidence of Evans shows that there is no significant positive relationship between government budget deficit and interest rate, but there is a negative relationship between them in different sample periods [4]. In recent years, owing to the availability of some microdata, some scholars have examined the relationship between fiscal policy and bank credit from a micro perspective. Using the enterprise loan data of 15 developed economies, Ağca and Igan [5] empirically find that the reduction of government expenditure and the increase of enterprise income tax will increase the enterprise credit cost. Auerbach et al. [6], based on the US Department of Defense (DOD) contracts data, find that higher defense spending significantly increased the supply of credit by promoting the liquidity of contractors’ balance sheets and reducing risk premiums. In addition, some scholars further investigate the relationship between fiscal policy and bank credit from the perspective of heterogeneity. Lyu et al. [7] find that the increase of productive spending increases the capital return rate and the leverage ratio of state-owned enterprises, resulting in a large number of credit resources flowing to state-owned enterprises. The security spending will promote the increase of capital return rate of private enterprises, resulting in the flow of credit to private enterprises. Becker and Ivashina [8] find that the ratio of public debt to GDP of eurozone countries increases by ten percentage points, the possibility of enterprises obtaining bank loans will decrease by one percentage point, but the effect is nonlinear, related to the level of government debt. The conflict between theory and empirical research conclusions indicates that the relationship between fiscal policy and bank credit still needs further testing.Against this background, this paper aims to explore the transmission channels through which fiscal policy poses impacts on bank credit. This is an essential step in the clarification of the relationship between fiscal policy and bank credit. The marginal contributions of this paper are twofold. First, we explore the possible influence channels of fiscal policy tools, namely government spending and tax revenue, on bank credit; second, we use China’s macroeconomic data and SVAR model to empirically test the possible influence channels, which effectively complement the existing research on the relationship between fiscal policy and bank credit.


## 2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis

According to the financial accelerator theory, due to the information asymmetry in the credit market, banks cannot observe the behavior of borrowers without cost. This will result in higher external financing costs than internal financing costs faced by borrowers, and the external financing premium is related to the balance sheet of the borrowers. Therefore, fiscal policy may pose an impact on bank credit by affecting the balance sheet, and then the external financing premium of borrowers. Specifically, different fiscal policy tools may have a heterogeneous influence on external financing premiums. As for government spending tools, an increase in government spending will increase the inflation rate, which, through the Fisher effect, will further enhance the wealth of entrepreneurs, thereby reducing the external financing premium of enterprises and increasing their bank credit [9]. In addition, when the economy is in the period of zero lower bound, the expansionary government spending will further lower real interest rates. In such circumstances, entrepreneurs can reduce future external financing premiums and credit costs by using cheap credit and improving their balance sheets [10]. On the other hand, fiscal policy is an aggregate demand policy, expansionary government spending will directly raise aggregate demand, boost consumption and investment, and promote the growth of the total economic income. In this way, the external financing environment of enterprises will be significantly improved, thereby reducing their external financing premium and increasing their bank credit [11].As for taxation tools, from the perspective of tax revenue source structure, since the tax paid by enterprises accounts for 90% of the total tax revenue in China, the increase in tax revenue will directly reduce the operating cash flow and the retained earnings of enterprises. This will weaken the internal financing capabilities of enterprises while increasing their external financing needs and financing costs. In addition, compared with the taxation on income and consumption, taxation on capital gains accounts for the highest proportion of the total tax revenue in China. The increase in tax revenue also means an increase in the taxation on capital gains. On the one hand, the increase in capital gains taxation will directly increase the production cost of enterprises, which will reduce the profit and net asset value of enterprises and lead to higher external financing premiums. On the other hand, higher external financing premiums will restrain corporate investment, resulting in a lower output level. Due to the countercyclical nature of external financing premiums, enterprises will face still higher external financing premiums and lower bank credit. Fazzari et al. [12] find that the elimination of the corporate taxes would spur investment in companies facing financing constraints. Accordingly, our first hypothesis is as follows:H1
: Higher government spending reduces the external financing premium, which in turn increases bank credit; higher government taxes raise the external financing premium, which in turn reduce bank credit.Due to the limited enforcement of the debt contract (That is, the borrower cannot force the borrower to repay the debt, so the borrower is required to use durable goods such as land and housing as collateral.), the credit availability of the borrower depends on the value of the collateral they hold. Thus, fiscal policy may affect the private sector credit availability through changes in the value of the collateral. Specifically, different fiscal policy tools may have heterogeneous impacts on the collateral value. As for government spending tools, an increase in government spending will lead to the rise of demand in the labor market and product market, which in turn increases wage levels and commodity prices, and furthermore, the increase in household income and corporate investment. Following that, the demand for collateral such as housing will further expand, resulting in the rising of the collateral price, the improvement of corporate financing capabilities, and the increase in loan demand. From the perspective of local government, since the land transaction fees are a significant source of income of the local government, the increase of fiscal expenditure will motivate the government to control the land supply to maximize the fiscal revenue. Consequently, the land and real estate prices will be pushed to a higher level. The rapid rise in real estate prices will further stimulate the residential housing demand, thus continuing to be pushing up housing prices while promoting the private sector to increase the demand for credit.Regarding the taxation tools, an increase in taxation will pose a negative wealth effect on residents and enterprises. This will directly lead to a reduction of residents’ disposable income and corporate retained earnings, thereby reducing their demand for collateral such as housing. Ultimately, the collateral prices suffer from a considerable decline. On the one hand, the decline of collateral value will limit the financing ability of enterprises through the collateral effect. Gan [13] find that during the bursting of Japan’s real estate bubble, the decline in the value of land possessed by real estate companies caused a significant reduction in their credit availability. Chaney et al. [14] find that the same collateral effect also exists in the United States, and there is a significant positive relationship between the debt capacity of US-listed companies and real estate prices. On the other hand, the increase of mortgage default rates and bank loan loss provisions along with the decline in collateral prices will lead to deterioration of banks’ balance sheets and the decline in their profitability. This will prompt banks to reduce their credit supply to the private sector. Davis and Zhu [15] empirically find that there is a significant positive relationship between real estate prices and the borrowing capacity and profitability of banks. Hence, our second hypothesis is stated as follows:H2: Higher government spending increases the value of collateral, which in turn increases bank credit; higher government taxes reduce the value of collateral, which in turn reduce bank credit.Since government bonds are more liquid than private bonds, fiscal policy can therefore pose an impact on the bank credit by adjusting the liquidity of the bank through the change of supply of government bonds. For the government spending tool, the expansion of fiscal expenditure may lead to an increase in the expected yield of treasury bonds due to the increase of treasury bonds supply. This will stimulate the banks’ motivation to increase their holdings of government bonds, which means the tightening of the bank’s leverage ratio restraints and the rising of corporate credit costs [16]. Ultimately, this will lead to the reduction of bank credit. In addition, as far as the local government debt is concerned, the expansion of local government investment expenditure will lead to an enlarged scale of local government debt. This will lead to the increase of household risk expectation for local government debt, as well as the increase of endogenous run-out probability among commercial banks. To meet liquidity requirements, commercial banks will increase their demand for liquid assets such as local government bonds and reduce their supply of credit. Regarding the taxation tool, an increase in tax revenue directly raises the production costs of enterprises, leading to a decrease in the profit margin of enterprises and an increase in the expected risk of loan default. For prudent management considerations, banks will increase their holdings of more liquid and safer government bonds and reduce credit to the private sector. On the other hand, the tax increase will also have a negative wealth effect on residents, reducing their disposable income and the demand for treasury bonds. It will result in a decline in treasury bond prices and an increase in treasury bond yields. For portfolio balance considerations, banks will allocate more government bonds while reducing the credit supply. Cao [17] finds that banks’ ability to obtain capital depends on their holding of nominal government bonds and physical capital, while the fiscal expenditure will reduce the real value of government bonds by increasing inflation, thus reducing banks’ net assets and hindering credit supply. Bouis [18] finds that the negative correlation between banks’ claims on governments and private-sector credit growth mainly reflects a rebalancing of banks’ portfolios toward safer and more liquid public assets. Accordingly, we state our third hypothesis as follows:H3
: Higher government spending and taxes will increase bank liquidity, which in turn will reduce bank credit.


## 3. Model Setting, Variable Selection, and Data Description

The structural vector autoregressive (SVAR) model has become one of the most crucial empirical methods for analyzing fiscal and monetary policies. Compared with the monetary policy, the fiscal policy is not easily affected by other contemporaneous economic variables, which means that the fiscal shock is more exogenous, and the SVAR model is more suitable for fiscal policy research [19]. Therefore, this paper applies the SVAR model to empirically test the transmission channel of fiscal policy to bank credit.


### 3.1. Model Setting

We set an SVAR model with six variables, as shown below:(1)A0yt=∑ℓ=1pAℓyt−ℓ+c+et,1≤t≤T,where yt is the n×1 dimension endogenous variable, including fiscal expenditure (FE), tax revenue (Tax), external financing premium (EFP), collateral value (Col), bank liquidity (Liq), and bank credit (Credit). Aℓ represents the n×n dimension structure parameter matrix, et and c represents the n×1 dimension structure shock and intercept term, respectively. While p represents the lag intervals for the endogenous variable. For the n−dimensional SVAR model, it is necessary to pose at least nn−1/2 constraints on the structural parameter matrix A0 for it to be able to identify structural shocks. Therefore, at least 15 constraints need to be added to the SVAR model in this study. Following by general assumptions proposed in previous researches on fiscal policy, the following assumptions are proposed on the structural parameter matrix: (1) a time lag exists in fiscal policy adjustments, meaning that the fiscal expenditures and tax revenue will not be affected by external financing premiums, collateral values, bank liquidity, and bank credit over the same period; (2) fiscal expenditure has no influence on tax revenue over the same period; (3) the bank credit will not affect the external financing premium, collateral value, and bank liquidity over the same period; (4) there is no relationship between the external financing premium, the collateral value, and the liquidity of the bank over the same period.


### 3.2. Variable Selection

The sample period of this paper is from 2005Q2 to 2018Q4, considering the internal time lag of fiscal policy and the availability of some data (In May 2005, the “Administrative Measures for Short-term Financing Bills” was issued by the People’s Bank of China, so the second quarter of 2005 was taken as the starting time. Measuring the market value of buildings requires annual property price data for Chinese provinces and cities, which is only updated to 2018, so 2008 was taken as the ending time.). The specific variables are selected and defined as follows:(1)
Fiscal expenditure and tax revenue: We select national, general, public budget expenditure, and fiscal tax revenue as proxy variables of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue, respectively.(2)
External financing premium: As the core variable of the financial accelerator, the external financing premium cannot be directly observed [20]. Instead, proxy variables of internal and external financing costs are usually selected to indirectly measure the external financing premium (In the existing literature, proxy variables for external financing costs include bank loan interest rates [21] and bond market financing interest rates [22]; proxy variables for internal financing costs include bond market interest rates [23], currency market interest rates [24] and credit bond interest rates, etc.). Considering that, the financial system of China is bank-dominated, we choose the bank loan interest rate as the proxy variable for external financing cost and select the interest rate of short-term financing bond as the proxy variable of the internal financing cost. Specifically, we use the difference between the weighted average interest rate of loans of financial institutions and the interest rate of short-term financing bills to measure the external financing premium.(3)
The value of the collateral: Based on the practice of Wu et al. [25], we select the market value of houses and buildings in fixed assets of listed companies in China as the proxy variable of collateral value.(4)
Bank liquidity: In general, the existing literature uses the ratio of bank liquidity assets to total bank assets to measure the liquidity of assets. But this paper focuses on the government bond holdings in banks’ liquid assets, so we use the ratio of the bank’s claims on the central government to its total assets as the proxy variable for bank liquidity.(5)
Bank credit: We select the RMB credit balance of financial institutions as a proxy variable.


### 3.3. Data Description

China’s national general public budget expenditure and fiscal tax revenue are obtained from CEInet statistics database. The weighted average interest rate of financial institutions’ loans (The data on the weighted average interest rate of loans from financial institutions was not released by the People’s Bank of China until the first quarter of 2009. Therefore, this paper calculates the weighted average interest rate of financial institution loans from the second quarter of 2005 to the fourth quarter of 2008 using the benchmark loan interest rate, interest rate fluctuation multiples, and the proportion of loans in each floating range/the total loan volume.), financial institutions’ claims on the central government, total assets, RMB credit balances, the market value of houses and buildings of listed companies, and the interest rate of short-term financing bills are obtained from the CSMAR database.The study goes through three major steps in terms of data processing. First, as all the original data, including the national general public budget expenditure, tax revenue, and RMB credit balance of financial institutions, are counted on a monthly basis, so we add them up on a quarterly basis. In addition, since the data on houses and buildings of listed companies are only released on the annual basis, we use the Chow-Lin interpolation method to convert the annual data into quarterly data. Second, all the data, except for the weighted average interest rate of loans and the interest rate of short-term financing bills, are adjusted for real variables by CPI (2005q2 = 100) (In the absence of directly available quarter-to-quarter CPI data, this paper refers to the practice of general literature and uses the sequential multiplication of CPI monthly data to measure quarterly CPI.). Finally, we use TRAMO/SEATS method to make the seasonal adjustment to all variables except the interest rate variable.


## 3.1. Model Setting

We set an SVAR model with six variables, as shown below:(1)A0yt=∑ℓ=1pAℓyt−ℓ+c+et,1≤t≤T,where yt is the n×1 dimension endogenous variable, including fiscal expenditure (FE), tax revenue (Tax), external financing premium (EFP), collateral value (Col), bank liquidity (Liq), and bank credit (Credit). Aℓ represents the n×n dimension structure parameter matrix, et and c represents the n×1 dimension structure shock and intercept term, respectively. While p represents the lag intervals for the endogenous variable. For the n−dimensional SVAR model, it is necessary to pose at least nn−1/2 constraints on the structural parameter matrix A0 for it to be able to identify structural shocks. Therefore, at least 15 constraints need to be added to the SVAR model in this study. Following by general assumptions proposed in previous researches on fiscal policy, the following assumptions are proposed on the structural parameter matrix: (1) a time lag exists in fiscal policy adjustments, meaning that the fiscal expenditures and tax revenue will not be affected by external financing premiums, collateral values, bank liquidity, and bank credit over the same period; (2) fiscal expenditure has no influence on tax revenue over the same period; (3) the bank credit will not affect the external financing premium, collateral value, and bank liquidity over the same period; (4) there is no relationship between the external financing premium, the collateral value, and the liquidity of the bank over the same period.


## 3.2. Variable Selection

The sample period of this paper is from 2005Q2 to 2018Q4, considering the internal time lag of fiscal policy and the availability of some data (In May 2005, the “Administrative Measures for Short-term Financing Bills” was issued by the People’s Bank of China, so the second quarter of 2005 was taken as the starting time. Measuring the market value of buildings requires annual property price data for Chinese provinces and cities, which is only updated to 2018, so 2008 was taken as the ending time.). The specific variables are selected and defined as follows:(1)
Fiscal expenditure and tax revenue: We select national, general, public budget expenditure, and fiscal tax revenue as proxy variables of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue, respectively.(2)
External financing premium: As the core variable of the financial accelerator, the external financing premium cannot be directly observed [20]. Instead, proxy variables of internal and external financing costs are usually selected to indirectly measure the external financing premium (In the existing literature, proxy variables for external financing costs include bank loan interest rates [21] and bond market financing interest rates [22]; proxy variables for internal financing costs include bond market interest rates [23], currency market interest rates [24] and credit bond interest rates, etc.). Considering that, the financial system of China is bank-dominated, we choose the bank loan interest rate as the proxy variable for external financing cost and select the interest rate of short-term financing bond as the proxy variable of the internal financing cost. Specifically, we use the difference between the weighted average interest rate of loans of financial institutions and the interest rate of short-term financing bills to measure the external financing premium.(3)
The value of the collateral: Based on the practice of Wu et al. [25], we select the market value of houses and buildings in fixed assets of listed companies in China as the proxy variable of collateral value.(4)
Bank liquidity: In general, the existing literature uses the ratio of bank liquidity assets to total bank assets to measure the liquidity of assets. But this paper focuses on the government bond holdings in banks’ liquid assets, so we use the ratio of the bank’s claims on the central government to its total assets as the proxy variable for bank liquidity.(5)
Bank credit: We select the RMB credit balance of financial institutions as a proxy variable.


## 3.3. Data Description

China’s national general public budget expenditure and fiscal tax revenue are obtained from CEInet statistics database. The weighted average interest rate of financial institutions’ loans (The data on the weighted average interest rate of loans from financial institutions was not released by the People’s Bank of China until the first quarter of 2009. Therefore, this paper calculates the weighted average interest rate of financial institution loans from the second quarter of 2005 to the fourth quarter of 2008 using the benchmark loan interest rate, interest rate fluctuation multiples, and the proportion of loans in each floating range/the total loan volume.), financial institutions’ claims on the central government, total assets, RMB credit balances, the market value of houses and buildings of listed companies, and the interest rate of short-term financing bills are obtained from the CSMAR database.The study goes through three major steps in terms of data processing. First, as all the original data, including the national general public budget expenditure, tax revenue, and RMB credit balance of financial institutions, are counted on a monthly basis, so we add them up on a quarterly basis. In addition, since the data on houses and buildings of listed companies are only released on the annual basis, we use the Chow-Lin interpolation method to convert the annual data into quarterly data. Second, all the data, except for the weighted average interest rate of loans and the interest rate of short-term financing bills, are adjusted for real variables by CPI (2005q2 = 100) (In the absence of directly available quarter-to-quarter CPI data, this paper refers to the practice of general literature and uses the sequential multiplication of CPI monthly data to measure quarterly CPI.). Finally, we use TRAMO/SEATS method to make the seasonal adjustment to all variables except the interest rate variable.


## 4. Empirical Results and Analysis

Before estimating the SVAR model, it is also necessary to test the stability of the variables, select the optimal lag order of the model, and estimate the stability of the model.


### 4.1. Stationary Test

ADF stationarity test is conducted for all processed data, and the test results are shown in Table1.Table 1
ADF test results of each variable.
VariablesADF statisticsP valueVariablesADF statisticsP valueFE−0.1491850.9927ΔFE−5.918495≤0.001Tax−1.6951260.7388ΔTax−5.3466930.0003EFP−1.9379820.3129ΔEFP−7.888289≤0.001Col−2.1935240.4828ΔCol−5.5341700.0002Liq−0.6095230.8593ΔLiq−4.8178640.0014Credit−2.2076200.4756ΔCredit−4.2212180.0080Note:Δ denotes first-order difference.The results of the unit root test, as shown in Table1, indicate that the original time series of each variable is nonstationary. But the null hypothesis is rejected at a significance level of 1% following the first-order difference. In other words, the variable is stationary after the first-order difference.


### 4.2. Selection of Optimal Lag Order

We select the lag order according to five information criteria of LR, FPE, AIC, SC, and HQ. The test results are shown in Table2. Based on various information criteria, the optimal lag order is selected as 5.Table 2
Optimal lag order.
Lag orderLogLLRFPEAICSCHQ0300.3746NA3.10e − 13−11.77498−11.54554−11.687611736.0202749.31043.58e − 20−27.76081−26.15471∗−27.14920∗2767.578946.706934.55e − 20−27.58316−24.60040−26.447313804.131645.325305.26e − 20−27.60526−23.24585−25.945174858.864154.732513.53e − 20−28.35456−22.61849−26.170245930.056654.10633∗1.69e − 20∗−29.76226∗−22.64954−27.05370Note:∗denotes the optimal lag order obtained according to the corresponding information criterion.


### 4.3. Co-Integration Test

According to the optimal lag order, the Johansen co-integration test results are shown in Table3.Table 3
Johansen co-integration test results.
Null hypothesisTrace statistics5% thresholdP valueMaximum eigen value statistics5% thresholdP valueNone∗226.340795.75366≤0.00187.2411240.07757≤0.001At most 1∗139.099669.81889≤0.00159.8428933.87687≤0.001At most 2∗79.2567047.85613≤0.00147.6555027.58434≤0.001At most 3∗31.6012029.797070.030721.1947421.131620.0490At most 410.4064615.494710.25089.04940814.264600.2820At most 51.3570543.8414660.24401.3570543.8414660.2440Note:∗denotes rejection of the null hypothesis at a significance level of 5%.Table3 shows that at the significance level of 5%, there are 4 co-integration relations in both trace test and maximum eigenvalue test, which means that there will be no pseudo-regression problem in the SVAR model with the level values of each variable. To avoid the loss of variable information caused by the difference, the model is therefore constructed with the level values. In addition, the reciprocal of the characteristic root module of the reduced-form VAR model to be estimated lie in the unit circle, indicating that the model is stationary.


### 4.4. Impulse Response Analysis

The impulse response function can be applied to analyze the current and future impacts of one standard deviation shock of the structural disturbance term on each variable in the model. Based on the impulse response function, we can analyze the transmission channels through which the fiscal policy affects the bank credit. In this paper, the fiscal policy shock is set as an increase in fiscal expenditure and tax revenue with one standard deviation.


#### 4.4.1. The External Financing Premium Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on the external financing premium are shown in the left panel of Figure1 and the center panel of Figure 1, respectively. The left panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the external financing premium responds positively in the current period, reaching the peak in the sixth period, after which it gradually decreases to reach long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will lead to an increase in the external financing premium of enterprises. The center panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the external financing premium shows a declining trend in the current period, and then its cumulative response fluctuates, gradually reaching a long-term equilibrium around the eleventh period. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will result in the reduction of enterprises’ external financing premium, and the extent of the impact is greater than tax revenues.Figure 1
Accumulative IRFs of the external financing premium channel.The accumulative effects of the external financing premium on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure1. The right panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of the external financing premium, bank credit has a positive response in the current period, then gradually declines over time, after the twelfth period tend to be a long-term equilibrium. This indicates that an increase in the external financing premium will lead to the reduction of the bank credit. This result can be explained from two perspectives. First, from the perspective of credit demand, an increase in external financing premium means higher financing costs faced by enterprises. This will stimulate enterprises’ tendency to invest with their own funds while reducing the demand for external liabilities. In other words, enterprises’ demand for credit will be reduced. From the perspective of credit supply, the reduction of credit resources obtained by enterprises means a decrease in their investment level and total output, which will worsen the external financing environment. In this case, banks will reduce their credit supply due to more serious adverse selection problems. Overall, an increase in the external financing premium will lead to a significant reduction of the bank credit, which is consistent with the viewpoint of the financial accelerator theory.In sum, the results shown in Figure1 strongly support hypothesis, H1. That is, through increasing the external financing premium, one standard deviation shock of tax revenue will lead to the reduction of the bank credit; through reducing the external financing premium, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase of the bank credit.


#### 4.4.2. Collateral Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on the value of collateral are shown in the left panel of Figure2 and the center panel of Figure 2, respectively. The left panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the collateral value responds negatively in the current period, reaching the minimum value in the seventh period. Then it gradually rises until reaching a long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will lead to a significant reduction of the collateral value in the short term but will be stabilized in the long term. The possible reason is that higher taxes will add to the tax burden of enterprises. To obtain profits, companies will transfer their increased cost in paying taxes to products, thus increasing the collateral value such as housing. This will to some extent offset the collateral value decreases caused by the decline in residents’ disposable income. The center panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the collateral value has a positive response in the current period, then gradually increases over time, after the twelfth period tend to long-term equilibrium. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in the collateral value. It also shows that the impact of fiscal expenditure is greater than that of the tax revenue.Figure 2
Accumulative IRFs of the collateral channel.The accumulative effects of the collateral value on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure2. The right panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of the collateral value, the bank credit will show a positive response in the current period, reaching its peak in the fourth period. Then the bank credit will gradually decrease until reaching a long-term equilibrium around the tenth period. This indicates that an increase in the collateral value will lead to an increase in bank credit. This result can be explained from two perspectives. First, when the collateral value increases, the loan default risk of enterprises will also decrease. Even though corporate defaults may still occur, the bank is more willing to supply credit in such conditions as it can gain higher value compensation and fewer loan loss provision. In addition, from the perspective of credit demand, the rise in collateral value also improves the financing capacity of enterprises, resulting in increased credit demand and investment. Second, the increase in the value of collateral because of the continued rise in house prices will encourage banks to overextend credit resources to the real estate sector, thereby crowding-out credit from the non-real estate sector. This will to some extent offset the crowding-in effect of the rising collateral value on the bank credit in the medium and long term.In sum, the results shown in Figure2 strongly support hypothesis, H2. That is, by reducing the collateral value, one standard deviation shock of tax revenue will lead to the reduction of bank credit; by increasing the collateral value, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in the bank credit.


#### 4.4.3. Bank Liquidity Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on bank liquidity are shown in the left panel of Figure3 and the center panel of Figure 3, respectively. The left panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the bank liquidity will respond positively in the current period, and then gradually increases over time, after the thirteenth period tends to a long-term equilibrium. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will accelerate the increase of bank liquidity. The center panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the bank liquidity will respond positively in the current period. It shows a rising trend over time until it reaches the state of long-term equilibrium after going through the fourteenth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in bank liquidity.Figure 3
Accumulative IRFs of the bank liquidity channel.The accumulative effects of bank liquidity on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure3. The right panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of bank liquidity, the bank credit shows a negative response in the current period. It reaches the minimum value in the fifth period, and then gradually increased slightly, until reaching a state of long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that increased bank holdings of government bonds will have a negative impact on bank credit. This can be explained from two perspectives. First, the liquidity and safety of government bonds are higher than that of private credit. This is crucial as banks prefer to hold safe assets such as government bonds due to their prudent nature in business operation, or out of their need for investment portfolio management in the short term. When the issuance of government bonds increases, financial institutions will hold more government bonds and reduce credit to the private sector. Second, banks’ larger holdings of government bonds enhance their ability to obtain liquidity support from the central bank, and the availability of sufficient liquidity for banks will facilitate the lending to the private sector. This will to some extent offset the crowding-out effect of bank liquidity on bank credit in the medium term.In sum, the results shown in Figure3 strongly support hypothesis, H3. That is, by increasing bank liquidity, one standard deviation shock of the tax revenue will lead to the reduction of bank credit; by strengthening the bank liquidity, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to the reduction of bank credit.


## 4.1. Stationary Test

ADF stationarity test is conducted for all processed data, and the test results are shown in Table1.Table 1
ADF test results of each variable.
VariablesADF statisticsP valueVariablesADF statisticsP valueFE−0.1491850.9927ΔFE−5.918495≤0.001Tax−1.6951260.7388ΔTax−5.3466930.0003EFP−1.9379820.3129ΔEFP−7.888289≤0.001Col−2.1935240.4828ΔCol−5.5341700.0002Liq−0.6095230.8593ΔLiq−4.8178640.0014Credit−2.2076200.4756ΔCredit−4.2212180.0080Note:Δ denotes first-order difference.The results of the unit root test, as shown in Table1, indicate that the original time series of each variable is nonstationary. But the null hypothesis is rejected at a significance level of 1% following the first-order difference. In other words, the variable is stationary after the first-order difference.


## 4.2. Selection of Optimal Lag Order

We select the lag order according to five information criteria of LR, FPE, AIC, SC, and HQ. The test results are shown in Table2. Based on various information criteria, the optimal lag order is selected as 5.Table 2
Optimal lag order.
Lag orderLogLLRFPEAICSCHQ0300.3746NA3.10e − 13−11.77498−11.54554−11.687611736.0202749.31043.58e − 20−27.76081−26.15471∗−27.14920∗2767.578946.706934.55e − 20−27.58316−24.60040−26.447313804.131645.325305.26e − 20−27.60526−23.24585−25.945174858.864154.732513.53e − 20−28.35456−22.61849−26.170245930.056654.10633∗1.69e − 20∗−29.76226∗−22.64954−27.05370Note:∗denotes the optimal lag order obtained according to the corresponding information criterion.


## 4.3. Co-Integration Test

According to the optimal lag order, the Johansen co-integration test results are shown in Table3.Table 3
Johansen co-integration test results.
Null hypothesisTrace statistics5% thresholdP valueMaximum eigen value statistics5% thresholdP valueNone∗226.340795.75366≤0.00187.2411240.07757≤0.001At most 1∗139.099669.81889≤0.00159.8428933.87687≤0.001At most 2∗79.2567047.85613≤0.00147.6555027.58434≤0.001At most 3∗31.6012029.797070.030721.1947421.131620.0490At most 410.4064615.494710.25089.04940814.264600.2820At most 51.3570543.8414660.24401.3570543.8414660.2440Note:∗denotes rejection of the null hypothesis at a significance level of 5%.Table3 shows that at the significance level of 5%, there are 4 co-integration relations in both trace test and maximum eigenvalue test, which means that there will be no pseudo-regression problem in the SVAR model with the level values of each variable. To avoid the loss of variable information caused by the difference, the model is therefore constructed with the level values. In addition, the reciprocal of the characteristic root module of the reduced-form VAR model to be estimated lie in the unit circle, indicating that the model is stationary.


## 4.4. Impulse Response Analysis

The impulse response function can be applied to analyze the current and future impacts of one standard deviation shock of the structural disturbance term on each variable in the model. Based on the impulse response function, we can analyze the transmission channels through which the fiscal policy affects the bank credit. In this paper, the fiscal policy shock is set as an increase in fiscal expenditure and tax revenue with one standard deviation.


### 4.4.1. The External Financing Premium Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on the external financing premium are shown in the left panel of Figure1 and the center panel of Figure 1, respectively. The left panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the external financing premium responds positively in the current period, reaching the peak in the sixth period, after which it gradually decreases to reach long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will lead to an increase in the external financing premium of enterprises. The center panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the external financing premium shows a declining trend in the current period, and then its cumulative response fluctuates, gradually reaching a long-term equilibrium around the eleventh period. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will result in the reduction of enterprises’ external financing premium, and the extent of the impact is greater than tax revenues.Figure 1
Accumulative IRFs of the external financing premium channel.The accumulative effects of the external financing premium on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure1. The right panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of the external financing premium, bank credit has a positive response in the current period, then gradually declines over time, after the twelfth period tend to be a long-term equilibrium. This indicates that an increase in the external financing premium will lead to the reduction of the bank credit. This result can be explained from two perspectives. First, from the perspective of credit demand, an increase in external financing premium means higher financing costs faced by enterprises. This will stimulate enterprises’ tendency to invest with their own funds while reducing the demand for external liabilities. In other words, enterprises’ demand for credit will be reduced. From the perspective of credit supply, the reduction of credit resources obtained by enterprises means a decrease in their investment level and total output, which will worsen the external financing environment. In this case, banks will reduce their credit supply due to more serious adverse selection problems. Overall, an increase in the external financing premium will lead to a significant reduction of the bank credit, which is consistent with the viewpoint of the financial accelerator theory.In sum, the results shown in Figure1 strongly support hypothesis, H1. That is, through increasing the external financing premium, one standard deviation shock of tax revenue will lead to the reduction of the bank credit; through reducing the external financing premium, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase of the bank credit.


### 4.4.2. Collateral Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on the value of collateral are shown in the left panel of Figure2 and the center panel of Figure 2, respectively. The left panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the collateral value responds negatively in the current period, reaching the minimum value in the seventh period. Then it gradually rises until reaching a long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will lead to a significant reduction of the collateral value in the short term but will be stabilized in the long term. The possible reason is that higher taxes will add to the tax burden of enterprises. To obtain profits, companies will transfer their increased cost in paying taxes to products, thus increasing the collateral value such as housing. This will to some extent offset the collateral value decreases caused by the decline in residents’ disposable income. The center panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the collateral value has a positive response in the current period, then gradually increases over time, after the twelfth period tend to long-term equilibrium. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in the collateral value. It also shows that the impact of fiscal expenditure is greater than that of the tax revenue.Figure 2
Accumulative IRFs of the collateral channel.The accumulative effects of the collateral value on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure2. The right panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of the collateral value, the bank credit will show a positive response in the current period, reaching its peak in the fourth period. Then the bank credit will gradually decrease until reaching a long-term equilibrium around the tenth period. This indicates that an increase in the collateral value will lead to an increase in bank credit. This result can be explained from two perspectives. First, when the collateral value increases, the loan default risk of enterprises will also decrease. Even though corporate defaults may still occur, the bank is more willing to supply credit in such conditions as it can gain higher value compensation and fewer loan loss provision. In addition, from the perspective of credit demand, the rise in collateral value also improves the financing capacity of enterprises, resulting in increased credit demand and investment. Second, the increase in the value of collateral because of the continued rise in house prices will encourage banks to overextend credit resources to the real estate sector, thereby crowding-out credit from the non-real estate sector. This will to some extent offset the crowding-in effect of the rising collateral value on the bank credit in the medium and long term.In sum, the results shown in Figure2 strongly support hypothesis, H2. That is, by reducing the collateral value, one standard deviation shock of tax revenue will lead to the reduction of bank credit; by increasing the collateral value, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in the bank credit.


### 4.4.3. Bank Liquidity Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on bank liquidity are shown in the left panel of Figure3 and the center panel of Figure 3, respectively. The left panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the bank liquidity will respond positively in the current period, and then gradually increases over time, after the thirteenth period tends to a long-term equilibrium. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will accelerate the increase of bank liquidity. The center panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the bank liquidity will respond positively in the current period. It shows a rising trend over time until it reaches the state of long-term equilibrium after going through the fourteenth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in bank liquidity.Figure 3
Accumulative IRFs of the bank liquidity channel.The accumulative effects of bank liquidity on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure3. The right panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of bank liquidity, the bank credit shows a negative response in the current period. It reaches the minimum value in the fifth period, and then gradually increased slightly, until reaching a state of long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that increased bank holdings of government bonds will have a negative impact on bank credit. This can be explained from two perspectives. First, the liquidity and safety of government bonds are higher than that of private credit. This is crucial as banks prefer to hold safe assets such as government bonds due to their prudent nature in business operation, or out of their need for investment portfolio management in the short term. When the issuance of government bonds increases, financial institutions will hold more government bonds and reduce credit to the private sector. Second, banks’ larger holdings of government bonds enhance their ability to obtain liquidity support from the central bank, and the availability of sufficient liquidity for banks will facilitate the lending to the private sector. This will to some extent offset the crowding-out effect of bank liquidity on bank credit in the medium term.In sum, the results shown in Figure3 strongly support hypothesis, H3. That is, by increasing bank liquidity, one standard deviation shock of the tax revenue will lead to the reduction of bank credit; by strengthening the bank liquidity, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to the reduction of bank credit.


## 4.4.1. The External Financing Premium Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on the external financing premium are shown in the left panel of Figure1 and the center panel of Figure 1, respectively. The left panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the external financing premium responds positively in the current period, reaching the peak in the sixth period, after which it gradually decreases to reach long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will lead to an increase in the external financing premium of enterprises. The center panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the external financing premium shows a declining trend in the current period, and then its cumulative response fluctuates, gradually reaching a long-term equilibrium around the eleventh period. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will result in the reduction of enterprises’ external financing premium, and the extent of the impact is greater than tax revenues.Figure 1
Accumulative IRFs of the external financing premium channel.The accumulative effects of the external financing premium on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure1. The right panel of Figure 1 shows that given one standard deviation shock of the external financing premium, bank credit has a positive response in the current period, then gradually declines over time, after the twelfth period tend to be a long-term equilibrium. This indicates that an increase in the external financing premium will lead to the reduction of the bank credit. This result can be explained from two perspectives. First, from the perspective of credit demand, an increase in external financing premium means higher financing costs faced by enterprises. This will stimulate enterprises’ tendency to invest with their own funds while reducing the demand for external liabilities. In other words, enterprises’ demand for credit will be reduced. From the perspective of credit supply, the reduction of credit resources obtained by enterprises means a decrease in their investment level and total output, which will worsen the external financing environment. In this case, banks will reduce their credit supply due to more serious adverse selection problems. Overall, an increase in the external financing premium will lead to a significant reduction of the bank credit, which is consistent with the viewpoint of the financial accelerator theory.In sum, the results shown in Figure1 strongly support hypothesis, H1. That is, through increasing the external financing premium, one standard deviation shock of tax revenue will lead to the reduction of the bank credit; through reducing the external financing premium, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase of the bank credit.


## 4.4.2. Collateral Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on the value of collateral are shown in the left panel of Figure2 and the center panel of Figure 2, respectively. The left panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the collateral value responds negatively in the current period, reaching the minimum value in the seventh period. Then it gradually rises until reaching a long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will lead to a significant reduction of the collateral value in the short term but will be stabilized in the long term. The possible reason is that higher taxes will add to the tax burden of enterprises. To obtain profits, companies will transfer their increased cost in paying taxes to products, thus increasing the collateral value such as housing. This will to some extent offset the collateral value decreases caused by the decline in residents’ disposable income. The center panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the collateral value has a positive response in the current period, then gradually increases over time, after the twelfth period tend to long-term equilibrium. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in the collateral value. It also shows that the impact of fiscal expenditure is greater than that of the tax revenue.Figure 2
Accumulative IRFs of the collateral channel.The accumulative effects of the collateral value on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure2. The right panel of Figure 2 shows that given one standard deviation shock of the collateral value, the bank credit will show a positive response in the current period, reaching its peak in the fourth period. Then the bank credit will gradually decrease until reaching a long-term equilibrium around the tenth period. This indicates that an increase in the collateral value will lead to an increase in bank credit. This result can be explained from two perspectives. First, when the collateral value increases, the loan default risk of enterprises will also decrease. Even though corporate defaults may still occur, the bank is more willing to supply credit in such conditions as it can gain higher value compensation and fewer loan loss provision. In addition, from the perspective of credit demand, the rise in collateral value also improves the financing capacity of enterprises, resulting in increased credit demand and investment. Second, the increase in the value of collateral because of the continued rise in house prices will encourage banks to overextend credit resources to the real estate sector, thereby crowding-out credit from the non-real estate sector. This will to some extent offset the crowding-in effect of the rising collateral value on the bank credit in the medium and long term.In sum, the results shown in Figure2 strongly support hypothesis, H2. That is, by reducing the collateral value, one standard deviation shock of tax revenue will lead to the reduction of bank credit; by increasing the collateral value, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in the bank credit.


## 4.4.3. Bank Liquidity Channel

The accumulative effects of fiscal expenditure and tax revenue on bank liquidity are shown in the left panel of Figure3 and the center panel of Figure 3, respectively. The left panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of tax revenue, the bank liquidity will respond positively in the current period, and then gradually increases over time, after the thirteenth period tends to a long-term equilibrium. This indicates that the government’s increase in tax revenue will accelerate the increase of bank liquidity. The center panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure, the bank liquidity will respond positively in the current period. It shows a rising trend over time until it reaches the state of long-term equilibrium after going through the fourteenth period. This indicates that the government’s increase in fiscal expenditure will lead to an increase in bank liquidity.Figure 3
Accumulative IRFs of the bank liquidity channel.The accumulative effects of bank liquidity on bank credit are shown in the right panel of Figure3. The right panel of Figure 3 shows that given one standard deviation shock of bank liquidity, the bank credit shows a negative response in the current period. It reaches the minimum value in the fifth period, and then gradually increased slightly, until reaching a state of long-term equilibrium around the twelfth period. This indicates that increased bank holdings of government bonds will have a negative impact on bank credit. This can be explained from two perspectives. First, the liquidity and safety of government bonds are higher than that of private credit. This is crucial as banks prefer to hold safe assets such as government bonds due to their prudent nature in business operation, or out of their need for investment portfolio management in the short term. When the issuance of government bonds increases, financial institutions will hold more government bonds and reduce credit to the private sector. Second, banks’ larger holdings of government bonds enhance their ability to obtain liquidity support from the central bank, and the availability of sufficient liquidity for banks will facilitate the lending to the private sector. This will to some extent offset the crowding-out effect of bank liquidity on bank credit in the medium term.In sum, the results shown in Figure3 strongly support hypothesis, H3. That is, by increasing bank liquidity, one standard deviation shock of the tax revenue will lead to the reduction of bank credit; by strengthening the bank liquidity, one standard deviation shock of fiscal expenditure will lead to the reduction of bank credit.


## 5. Conclusions

Based on the quarterly data from 2005 to 2018, this paper constructs an SVAR model to empirically analyze the transmission channel of fiscal policy to bank credit. The main findings are as follows: fiscal policy can pose an impact on bank credit through external financing premium channel, collateral channel, and bank liquidity channel, but with inconsistent directions of effects. (1) With regard to the tax revenue, changes in tax revenue can cause reverse changes in bank credit through external financing premium channel, collateral channel, and bank liquidity channel; (2) With regard to the fiscal expenditure, changes in the fiscal expenditure can lead to bank credit changes in the same direction through the external financing premium channel and collateral channel, and lead to bank credit changes in the opposite direction through bank liquidity channel.



---

*Source: 6790245-2021-12-23.xml*