Digital Capitalism: Logic of Capitalism Practice in the Context of Communication Technology in Industry 4.0

Digitalization is a certainty. Digitalization has become the main communication requirement in the Industrial Revolution 4.0, and the world is experiencing fundamental changes in human ways of living and working. Relations between humans have also significantly changed. In the previous era, information was loaded and exchanged in analog form; today, it is communicated by digital means. Individuals create networks that are interconnected through digital technology on the internet. Information has become the glue of the networked society. Individuals must join the network if they want to stay connected with other parties. A central priority in the Industrial Revolution 4.0 is avoiding being left behind by the progress of the communications technology industry. However, as members of the networked society, we have the right to question the referral and future direction of the goals of digital technology. This study examines the workings of digital capitalism from the perspective of communication technology in industry 4.0. Using a meta-analytical approach, the article begins with an explanation of some perspectives of digital capitalist concepts, which is then corroborated by findings concerning specific categories in the great narrative of digital capitalism. That analysis is followed by a discussion of the practice of digital capitalism on both the national and global scales and an exploration of future opportunities, including the impacts of digital capitalism in network communities. Humanitarian interests must be at the center of technology such that it belongs to all people and is not monopolized by some parties.

INTRODUCTION
Surfing in the virtual world and enabling connections to data sources in real time have become major activities in the digital technological era. The previous abundance of information in analog form has been supplanted by the development of infinitely expansive digital data marked as bits (binary digits), placed on clouds, and classified as "big data" (Valenduc & Vendramin, 2017). Digitalization has brought about significant changes in how people looking for information related on how people keep its own existence. During the era of agrarian society, people searched for information by physically traveling and exploring the resources that could meet their needs; however, digital technology enables people to explore the world and gain information by entering a cyber world connected to other information resources (Schwab, 2016). For example, internet search engines connect users' devices with those of data providers. In the information society, data has become the main resource exchanged between network members (Castells, 2000).
The Industrial Revolution 4.0 has changed on how people work and relate with others (Schwab, 2016). Economic capital alone is not sufficient to enter and participate in the industry. The integration of cyber systems and automation technology has become a central element of industry 4.0, which emerged when computation technology brought society to the phase of digitally-based industry. Communication and connection among parties is a major activity in the industry 4.0 era. to convert knowledge into economic capital. Interactions between people and data resources effect the conversion strategy and generate economic benefits. Participation is converted such that it increases the economic value of a set of data from users' participation in online activities (Schwab, 2016). Economic and social exploitation is a notable consequence when users engage in interactions while connected to the cyber world (Fisher, 2010), and some parties have become service providers that fuel these interactions. Economic activities are involved in every technological development, including digital technology connected through the internet.
The structure of digital activities can be analyzed from the perspective of the Marxist concept of work value; however, there is an alternative framework for creating the value of practices in prosumer practices, in which internet users are also the data providers (Arvidsson & Colleoni, 2012). In the alternative framework, the understanding of value creation outside the formal work system is based on the capacity to start and maintain networks of affection, and value realization is derived from reputation based financial economic. This model explains the creation of value and appropriation in the context of networked prosumer platforms. Christian Fuchs (2014a) applied Marxian class analysis to explain the general concept of "information capitalism," which he specifically related to new forms of media such as Google, YouTube, Myspace, and Facebook. Fuchs concluded that such platforms are highly dependent on free labor, as their production processes generally provide no salary, with the result being that information capitalism entails an unprecedented scale of exploitation of "knowledgeable, paid, and unpaid workers" (Fuchs, 2014b).
This study presents a literature review of capitalist practices in the context of the communication technology industry. The article examines the logic of capitalism that leads to economic exploitation, which is considered an extension of people's ability to solve problems related to economics and survival, and it also considers opportunities for equality in technological development. Both users and data providers are considered participants in converting user activity into large collections of data to reap economic benefits.
This study reviews initial understandings of digital capitalism based on previous studies. Concisely, the concept of digital capitalism is raised to examine the gap among social classes in the context of the creation of industrial technology as well as the corporation. The digital capitalism approach has been explored in a series of frameworks, such as informational capitalism (Castells, 1996), cybercapitalism (Schiller, 2000) (Mosco & Schiller, 2001), technocapitalism (Kellner, 2002), and virtual capitalism (Dawson & Bellamy Foster, 2000). Initial conceptualizations aimed to understand social complexity and the relationship between new technologies and capitalism. Social complexity derives from the multiple dimensions encompassed by the relation between capitalism and new technology, including social and political-economic interactions. Specifically, the market-driven policies of Western governments (particularly the United States) have engendered the establishment of a neo-liberal influenced network communication infrastructure fueled by a political-economic transformation of supporting internal corporations and transnational companies in the internet era (Schiller, 2000).
This study uncovers the social irregularities of digital capitalism. Although most reviews of capitalism focus on its structural aspects, this work will consider the agent dimensions as informed by Jean Baudrillard's (1998) thoughts of the consumption society. The resulting understanding shows the importance of analyzing the social, political, and economic dynamics of today's internet as well as engaging in critical reflection on the challenges facing democracy (Curran, 2012). The establishment and strengthening of digital capitalism are related to the emergence of the World Wide Web as a consumer medium (Schiller, 2000).

Methodology
A literature review approach comprises a series of activities such as collecting library data, reading and recording, and managing research material (Danial & Warsiah, 2009). A literature review aims to develop both theoretical and practical aspects of the research topic.
By conducting literature reviews, researchers gain broader and deeper insights into the problem under study. The author conducted this literature review after determining the topic of the study and the formulation of the problem based on a consideration of the facts of the field and how to collect the necessary data. The data used herein derives from books, journals, journalistic reports, scientific articles, and other literature that discuss the concepts being studied.

References on Capitalism
This article's discussion on capitalism is informed by Marxist frameworks. Specifically, the study applies Marxist ideas on capitalism as elaborated by David Harvey (2010). In order to obtain an understanding of capitalism and society, we also need to understand related issues on space and geography as well as time, such as work time and the theory of work value.
Although not specifically called as techno-skeptics, Harvey criticized the cellular media for promoting images that manipulate people's needs and create fake Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 558 awareness (Harvey, 2010). Rather than asking users for their contributions, capitalist mobility enables corporations to make people work almost any time and anywhere, which breaks the boundary between spare time and the workforce under the exploitative conditions of mobile phone production in international divisions of work capitalism.
Work convergence and spare time would be less problematic if working activity could become more fun, social, and independent. Companies' desire for productive workforces has resulted in the absorption of spare time so workers can generate more value. Harvey's (2010) discussion of communication facility based on Marx's works analyzed this issue as a spatial attribution. Information and communication technology, including computers, play an important role in the acceleration of commodity space-time circulation (Harvey, 2010). Computers and digital networks are not only organizers of data and information circulation, they also serve as tools to produce information products. Computers and digital networks have become internal and external platforms for communication companies. Whereas vehicles transport people, computer networks transport product information and communication waves. A computer is a universal engine that is used as a production, circulation, and consumption tool.

Scope of Digital Activity
Analog systems provide data in the form of atoms, like writing on paper or in books, voices from membrane vibrations, the beam of light from an incandescent lamp, and the touch sensed by the nerves of the skin. However, bits are the smallest atomic elements of information; they have no color, size, or weight and they can move at the speed of light. Digital activities have supplanted the analog signal with the digital signal. Information in the form of text, voices, and images, including knowledge or human cognition, are embedded in digital signals consisting of bits embodied in 1 and 0 units (Negroponte, 1995). Negroponte (1995) pointed out the study of a radical new culture that has arisen in the middle of graphic computers and human communication in the interactive multimedia era.
It can be said that the information revolution was marked by the shift from atom to bit form, especially in the information industry. Sound, static images, or videography can be translated and widely distributed as bit structures. Human-information relations have undergone radical change (Negroponte, 1995). In digital media, not only conversion or copying can be done easily, people are also able to send information from one medium to many media en masse. As users, humans interact and interpret the information through the interface medium. At this point, human communication patterns have also changed drastically, some even struggle to tie the relation with other users. However, human curiosity has bridged analog and digital knowledge. For instance, virtual reality (VR) gives users the experience that they are also "there" even though they remain in a different time and space. Digital technology enables people to overcome time and space limitations in the context of their relations with other people (users).
In the information era, mass media have become wider and smaller at the same time. In the postinformation era, we often only have audiences. Everything is made to order and information is personalized. The post-information era will eliminate geographic boundaries in the same way that hypertext eliminated the delimitation of printed pages (Orihuela, 2003). In the post-information age, the concept of address has acquired a new meaning, as you can live and work in on one or more location. Addresses have taken on a virtual form, such as email.
Digital technology in the form of the internet and social networking has changed the paradigm of public communication dynamics that prevailed in the analog mass media environment. Many communication challenges for traditional media have emerged in the digital era, such as new relations with the public (interactivity), a new language (multimedia) and new grammar (hypertext), as well as real time relations in time and space (real time) (Orihuela, 2003). Globally, the process of digitalization can be understood as a massive transformation from the classic mass media model to a new media paradigm: users have become central processers of communication, data in the form of content is the identity of media, multimedia is the new language, real time is the only time, hypertext is the grammar, and knowledge is the new name of information.
Gordon E. Moore, co-founder of the United Statesbased microchip maker Intel, elaborated Moore's law in relation to the storage and processing of computation in digital data technology. Moore's law predicts that the amount of transistors in an IC (integrated circuit) will double approximately every two years and has proven to be an accurate estimation of the progress of computing technology (Reichardt, 2006). In industrial contexts, the data storage has become as small as a fingernail in the shape of a MicroSD, which has 1,000 times the capacity of early storage devises (4 gigabytes and more). The computation ability previously restricted to huge desktop devices is now inside smartphones (Melnikov & Semenyuk, 2014).
Today, computation ability is not only owned by large companies, as technological democracy makes it possible for individuals to become more than passive users who fully depend on information from data providers. Individual users have become producers of data known as user-generated content (UGC), as seen in social media such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 558
Instagram, and web-logs (blogs) (Duffy, 2015). Advances in communication and information technology have generated a convergence in the media industry (Tapsell, 2015). Now, conventional media (TV, radio, newspaper) has established a bigger hold in new media platforms and multiplatforms. Thus, a technology convergence has occurred whereby old and new platforms meet on a single platform due to the digitalization of media content.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION
In simple terms, digital capitalism refers to capitalism through internet connectivity. The concept of cyberspace was initially developed by government entities (government bodies, education institutions, military contractors); however, it is now primarily a tool for profit oriented corporate users rather than to increase the prosperity of its users. Mining digital data used for social activities to connect people, family, and friends has become an economic activity and so does with personal life. Services such as reading the news, listening to the music, interacting with friends, information sharing, making purchases, and so on have become faster through digitalization.
There is no single theory that can elaborate the development of digital capitalism. The phenomenon has walked slowly but surely from the 1990s to the present day. Two events can be considered to represent background of digital capitalism development. First was the Fordism phenomenon, which emerged when Henry Ford became the first mass automaker during the Industrial Revolution and introduced the largest capitalism facility to-date during the 1950s. Ford introduced workforce specialization to first produce separate spare-parts and then combine them through mass assembly so that Ford could produce a large amount of cars at a single time. As a result, the auto market was monopolized by his company. Capitalism homogenized society's consumption patterns by introducing the mass production wave, and bidding logic came to dominate the automotive production market. This capitalist practice gained critics due to inequalities that generated cynicism among the working class against the capital owners. Producers maintain the consumption pattern by slipping in added value to the things they produce through advertising or bidding logic (Baudrillard, 1998).
Capitalism entered the digital platform when the World Wide Web programming phenomenon was developed by Tim Berners-Lee (Adida, 1997). A radical transformation occurred with the shift from Web 1.0 technology (read, consult, surf, and search) into Web 2.0 (read-write, participation/collaboration, interactive, network as platform). The main concern of Web 2.0 technology is users' participation (O'Reilly, 2005); users give data input to a website address, with the main implication being that the web will have more data and not depend on data input from technicians or programmers. Whereas the web preciously depended on the centralization of data sources, Web 2.0 technology enables users to provide data using no particular computer programming language.
With the idea network as a platform providing space to collaborate, there is a need for users to keep consuming the technology. In addition to obtaining information from web providers, interaction in the cyber world has become a need. Examples of Web 2.0 operations are applications that users do not have to buy software to operate, such as Wikipedia and Google. Users can directly input their queries using daily language. Keywords are critical elements of this technology because the user can specify the displayed data on a platform. Data input activity in the form of keywords by users has become information fuel that is processed by websites like Google. A set of keywords from users is classified and accommodated to become a set of big data. The experience engenders and enhances the users' dependence on the website because the users' data searching activities yield results that are wanted by the users. However, the data input from users' activities have economic value, which is offered to advertisers. The same thing also happens on social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and so on.
The implication of users' contribution to networks through web activity has become the main tool for market dominance in the Web 2.0 era (O'Reilly, 2005). Ensuring users' continued involvement is the primary operation of managing Web 2.0. Pleasant and fun user interfaces and experiences are major priorities for Web 2.0-based site developers. The implication is that the users conduct their activities on a website not because of any need but rather due to the desire to feel the amazing experience and display with which they are presented. Meanwhile, the websites' owners continue mining data in the form of information input from users that sign in to the network. Interaction with other users also extends engagement with a website.

Data and Information as Commodities
Commodities are the fundamental drivers of capitalism (Marx, 1976). Critical analysis of commodities leads to an understanding of the commodification of media. The media that becomes a medium is now a producer and manager of information. Because data is the main fuel in the relations between parties in networking communities (Schneider & Castells, 1997), information has become a unique commodity. Information can be easily collected, copied, and distributed. Data have high initial production costs; however, the costs of copying and distribution are low. Data production entails high risk and uncertainty about whether or not the data can be sold (Fuchs, 2017). The

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 558
logic used in this basic form of capitalism is transactional logic, and data is the exchange tool. Rather than users having an equal bargaining position, the power is mainly owned by the manager or owner of the digital platform or website. Users remain a lower class, namely consumers, although they still supply materials in the form of data for website managers. The user is a free labor class in the relationship.
The wealth of information is the main capital in digital capitalism. The sheer abundance of information requires a specific strategy to manage it and elevate the website from a mere digital waste dump. Data management includes a strategy of transferring functions or the commodification of shared rules regarding intellectual property rights and copyrights, namely the initial agreement in the form of the user's approval of website usage. Rules that become a joint legal umbrella are made by web managers, including approval of privacy policies. The offered narrative is essentially "using means agreeing" to all the rules contained in the website; however, the construction of joint policies and rules does not necessarily involve user participation. Rather than protecting the users, website managers usually include an offer of approval that the data they obtain from user activities will be used as a database, which means that the users allow the managers to use their information to be retargeted toward them so they remain connected with the website.
Are users aware of the restrictions on their right to know the use of data or information that has been sent to the manager? In most cases, the answer is no! Even if they realize it, prosumers prefer to entertain themselves by staying active on the basis of the interesting user experiences offered by the website managers. Another problem related to privacy is that most digital giants either do not have a strong privacy mechanism or ignore the mechanism. Many privacy issues have emerged on social media websites such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and others (Segura & Waisbord, 2019). Although the issue of personal data privacy has led to debate, no concrete policies have been developed to regulate this issue.
The next strategy is commodification from access into content in the form of subscriptions whereby the users obtain notification of content updates. Web 2.0 technology allows users to obtain notifications of new data uploaded to the website. If users think they need it, they will provide their virtual addresses (email addresses) in order to obtain personal notifications. The act of providing and obtaining notifications is a strategy to keep users connected to the website. When users are online, they will obtain the notifications and respond to them. Attractive content also keeps users and managers connected on the network.
Commodification of the production, distribution, and consumption of technology includes updating content and algorithms as well as the user interface and experience. Content and distribution are well matched in order to attract users to the website. Although website content is important and interesting for viewers and users, if it does not support massive distribution, users' access to content will become slower. It can be said that the content becomes passive, as in the logic of Web 1.0 technology, whereby content only waits for information seekers rather than actively targeting users.
Commodification of the audience occurs through advertising. Commodities gained from users and their data are generated in targeted online advertisements. The users are obliged to comply with such commodification by their agreement with the shared rules regarding website use, which includes accepting changes in programming languages (algorithms) and making users act as audiences when a website displays commercial content or advertisements. These advertisements are not arbitrarily chosen; rather, their content is adjusted according to users' activity on the website. The computational algorithm has analyzed and reported users' activity to the system, which then independently provides feedback to display the advertisements according to user preferences.

The User Interface in the Context of Digital Capitalism
The creation of the World Wide Web was a turning point in the history of the internet that radically changed the way information is accessed, shared, and organized around the world (Curran, 2012). Network sites serve as platforms to build and form "user-interfaces" that provide a convenient way for owners to manage and access data and distribute it across computer networks.
The inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, has always been committed to social welfare and imagined the web as a "universal medium" for information sharing, i.e., a form of media that was not primarily defined by commercial interests (Berners-Lee, 2014). Throughout the 1990s, Berners-Lee's original project was overthrown by the aggressive commercialization of the web (Curran, 2012), which strengthened company control over content as well as facilitating new practices of corporate supervision and exploitation.
The entrenchment of web commercialization was made possible through a series of technological advancements and web developments, such as the establishment of Google's monopoly in the search engine field. Tim O'Reilly, the founder of O'Reilly Media and the person who popularized Web 2.0 and open source terminology, said that the early 2000s had seen the development of different types of early web versions (O'Reilly, 2005). The newer forms were no longer based on hypertext networks, but rather on the coproduction of information, social networks, and utilization of the collective intelligence of its users to Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 558 create value. "Participation," "interactivity," and "usergenerated content" are terms used in business, popular publishing, and academics to determine these later developments in web technology.
The potential of new technologies for interactive features has offered unprecedented possibilities for user involvement, creativity, and collaboration. Nonetheless, this system is still far from democratic because it does not offer opportunities for collaboration between owners and web users. Web 2.0 technology actually strengthens new forms of capitalist exploitation and supervision (Fuchs, 2007). Veronica Barassi (2015) argued that the digital discourse around Web 2.0 works as a form of capitalist justification and legitimacy as well as an amplifier of the new spirit of capitalism.

Globalization Dilemma and Technology Opportunities
The progress of the communication technology industry that enables humans to be connected globally through the internet and digital media comes with a dilemma as well as a challenge that must be addressed immediately. Christian Fuchs (2007) mentioned a number of concepts that could be subjects of more indepth study: internet dialectics; digital capacity; commodification and forms of digital media commodities; labor, surplus value, exploitation, alienation, and class in the digital era; globalization and the internet; ideology and the internet; class struggle in digital media; shared digital; digital public space; digital media and socialism; and the aesthetics of digital media.
Technology development opportunities are still wide open. Narratives related to technology that makes people prosperous should be echoed not only at the conceptual level, but also in practical ways. Each pattern illustrates the repetition of problems in the community. It is important to elaborate solutions to these problems so that the community can implement them appropriately. The communications technology industry is increasingly driven by the abundance of data. For competitive advantage, they try to have unique data sources and make themselves difficult to recreate. Competitive advantages in the internet and digital media depend on the degrees to which users add data. Software and website technology can always develop room for fair participation as well as reduce or eliminate gaps between platform owners and developers and the users who keep supplying them with data.

CONCLUSIONS
The narrative of the advance of communication technology is being shaped by capitalist logic. Ideas of equality for the common good as proposed by great thinkers such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and others seem restricted to world thought, whereas capitalism has always remained an inevitable fact. Capitalism is a major force in digitalization, which has enabled the extension of humans' ability to overcome the problems of space and time. The development of the digital-based communication technology industry has strengthened the formation of a networked society in which information is a form of capital and the aim is for each individual to stay connected in the network. In information communities, data is a commodity and an exchange value to establish relations with other people and fulfill the basic human needs of self-defense and survival. Some parties develop digital platforms to enable users to communicate and become connected.
The critiques elaborated in this study relate to deceptions underlying the ease and speed of the spread allowed by digital giants. For example, Facebook generates nothing from users who only read interesting uploads without engaging in "click" activities; content is created when users search for topics that suit their tastes or press the "like" button, react, or comment on uploads. Thus, the more uploads become viral the more opportunities are generated for interactions with website readers, including comments and reactions. Moreover, the opening of the world of memes has allowed users to express their creative ideas regardless of whether they can harm other people. As more viral news uploads on their walls to attract visitors, the search engines gain more data through users' searches from the upload.
Other critiques discussed in the article are related to unresolved privacy issues associated with the rules of website use. Digital capitalism cannot be ruled out as an irrelevant social force impacted by well-known concepts like class equality, ownership of personal assets, and even socialism. Most people's ways of life promote competition without monopoly and efficiency, but rather through different media. This is important for producers and consumers alike. However, the negative impacts of its growth should be examined further to prevent criminal acts that begin with the exchange of data with minimal essential truths that can disrupt the democratic process. A number of mechanisms need to be developed as filters to protect the public, and it is important to enhance digital literacy or education so the communication between parties occurs on the basis of awareness and mutual agreement.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 558


HOW DOES THE G20 SUMMIT AFFECT LAND MARKET? EVIDENCE FROM CHINA

. We employ the difference-in-difference and synthetic control methods to investigate the capitalization effect of hosting the G20 Summit on land market, based on China’s land transaction dataset from 2011 to 2019. We find that hosting the G20 Summit has a significant positive effect on land prices in the host city, increasing land prices by over 22.6% compared to comparable cities. The impact of hosting the G20 Summit on land prices is larger in the post-G20 period than in the preparation period. Further, hosting the G20 Summit has heterogeneous and distributional effects on land prices. The capitalization effects of venue construction and transportation infrastructure upgrading on land prices are the main channels.

Introduction
The economic impact of a mega-event has long been researched in urban studies and urban economics. A megaevent is a major, short-term event which enhances the awareness of a destination and has a measurable economic outcome (Marris, 1987;Witt, 1988). The G20 Summit, like the Olympic Games, is one of the important mega-events. Hosting the G20 Summit is an important impetus for urban development, socioeconomic progress and environmental improvement. Further, hosting the G20 Summit would advance the host city's international awareness and business potential. If bidders' or investors' perception of the host city's investment potential has increased after the G20 Summit, then this would be reflected in the land market and generate price premium in the real estate market. The positive perception and legacy of the mega-event would be capitalized in property prices (Kontokosta, 2012;Hilber, 2017).
Although hosting the G20 Summit is supposed to yield political and economic benefits, empirical study about the effect of hosting the G20 Summit on the land market is still lacked. Economic benefit capitalizing on land prices highlights the important role of land in urban development and economic growth. Land is a basic production and consumption factor for an economy. Land price movements affect the cost of production, living and the distribution of wealth (George, 1879;Huang & Du, 2017a), which translates into broader macroeconomic impacts.
Our paper employs a quasi-natural experimental approach to investigate the impact of the G20 Summit on land prices in China. We provide new evidences on the impacts of mega-events on the land market in China. In contrast to previous studies, we further explore the heterogeneous effects and mechanisms through which a megaevent impacts on land prices.
Our paper's contribution to the literature is twofold. First, we shed new light on identifying and assessing the economic effect of the hosting G20 Summit. Previous studies focus on examining the economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games (Kontokosta, 2012;Kavetsos, 2012;Wang et al., 2015). However, hosting the G20 Summit is also an important mega-event yielding political and economic benefits, especially for China. It is no less important to estimate the economic impact of hosting the G20 Summit compared to an Olympic Games.
Second, our study contributes to the literature on how a mega-event affects land markets. Although many studies have assessed the economic, environmental and social impacts of mega-events (Tyrrell, 1987;Kuminoff & Pope, 2012;Chen et al., 2013;Zhu et al., 2016), there have been few studies quantifying the effects of hosting a mega-event on the land market. In addition, a growing number of studies examine whether and how public projects or investments would be capitalized in housing prices and discuss the implications of such capitalization (Kuminoff & Pope, 2014;Hilber, 2017). However, there are fewer studies about the effects of mega-event on land prices through public projects or investments channels.
The next section reviews the literature on the economic impact of hosting mega-events from theoretical and empirical perspectives. Section 2 is background. Section 3 is the empirical framework which describes the empirical methodology and data description. Section 4 presents the empirical results. Section 5 explores the potential impact channels. The final section concludes.

Literature review
There is a large amount of studies on the economic impact of mega-events. Previous studies about the impact of hosting an Olympic Games indicate a mixed impact, and consistent conclusions have not yet been achieved. Hosting the G20 Summit is an important strategy for a city's economic development under the context of regional competition for investment. Host city would attract investors, tourists and public awareness. Valuing the economic impact of a mega-event produced by non-academic institution has always been criticized for its subjectivity. However, rigorous studies for the effect of hosting the G20 Summit are scarce. Revealing the short-run and long-term economic impacts of hosting the G20 Summit and its legacy effects is still needed.

Theoretical expectations
Hosting a mega-event will spur host city's economic activities and promote the demand for real estate, and raise property prices. Hosting the G20 Summit may lead to an increase in land prices by three main channels. First, the increased infrastructure and transport facilities for hosting the G20 Summit would decrease the production costs for firms and transportation costs for consumers, which would lead to bid up land prices for better access to these positive externalities. Second, hosting G20 Summit would improve host city's urban environments and amenities, and thus would increase the demand for land and housing (Rappaport, 2009). As a result, the land market should adjust to account for the increased demand by raising prices in the short term. Third, the better public awareness and increased development potential of the host city would increase outside investors' and speculators' demand for real estate, which would also bid up land prices (Kontokosta, 2012). If these demand shocks occurred, the land prices in the host city would be bid up higher during the preparation and post-G20 Summit periods. In the preparation period, G20 Summit-related investment and increased speculation might promote land demand more than supply and result in the increase of land prices. In the post-G20 Summit period, improved urban infrastructure and environment would increase land prices because of positive amenity effects. In addition, positive effects of the G20 Summit might bring about longer-lasting land price appreciation in the host city than in other cities.
There are other possible price impacts. First, if government officials are concerned about residents' welfare and the host city's competitiveness, they would match the cost associated with the event up to the expected benefit and land prices might remain unchanged (Kontokosta, 2012). Second, if local tax were also raised to fund the G20 Summit, as happened in 2004 Athens Olympics, the capitalization of the increased expenditure would lead to a decrease in land prices (Hilber, 2017). Third, if new land supply, fueled by expectation and speculation, outpaced demand, land prices would decrease until the existing stock were absorbed by the increasing demand (Hilber, 2017). Fourth, if G20 Summit-related investment and projects were misallocated and were not economically and socially beneficial, it would result in the decrease of land prices relative to comparable cities.

Empirical evidences
Most studies suggested that the economic impact of a mega-event is non-negligible (Kavetsos, 2012;Ahlfeldt & Kavetsos, 2014). However, the impact of a mega-event on the land market has been given limited attention. Residential and commercial land prices are important indicators of a city's investment potential and economic development (Huang & Du, 2017a), and also provide a measure of how investors perceive the mega-event.
A few studies have investigated the effect of megaevents on land markets. Most studies focused on examining the housing price effects of venue and facilities construction (Tu, 2005;Ahlfeldt & Kavetsos, 2014). Most studies suggest that mega-event would bring positive effects on real estate prices. For example, Tu (2005) found a positive price effect for property closer to the stadium. Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2014) examined the effect of the two largest stadium in London on housing prices, and found that the significant positive capitalization effects were large compared with construction costs. Wang and Bao (2018) studied the impacts of hosting the Beijing Olympic Games on property prices and found that house prices increased significantly after the games. Kontokosta (2012) examined the house price effects of hosting the Olympic Games based on data from six host cities, and found that the effects depend on Olympic-related development and investment. Kavetsos (2012) estimated a positive price effect following the announcement of hosting the 2012 Olympic Games in London. Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) found a significant positive effect of sports arenas on land value in Berlin.
Previous studies document a variety of factors that influence the property price and the property price effect of mega-event. The property prices are generally influenced by individual (parcel or housing level) characteristics (Kuminoff & Pope, 2014), neighborhood characteristics (Huang & Du, 2015), public facilities (Hilber, 2017;Ahlfeldt & Kavetsos, 2014), environmental attributes (Touseef et al., 2021;, behavioral factors (Zhu et al., 2016), policy and institution . As to the mega-event such as Olympic Games and G20 Summit, the expected economic benefits may result in a significant shift in land prices through the capitalization of positive amenities, including urban regeneration, infrastructure construction and environment upgrading (Wang & Bao, 2018;Kontokosta, 2012).
However, many previous studies could not identify the potential causal effect of mega-event or externality on property prices. It is because of a lack of appropriate comparable cities (only comparing between host city and host nation), failing to compare post-event outcomes and not adequately controlling for other explanatory variables.
To fill gaps, we investigate the effects of hosting the G20 on land prices based on difference-in-difference and hedonic approach. We also examine the heterogeneous and distribution effect of hosting the G20 on land prices, which provides new evidences for the effects of megaevent from China. We further apply synthetic method for obtaining robust estimates.

Hangzhou's preparation for hosting the G20 Summit
Hangzhou was chosen to host the eleventh meeting of the Group of Twenty (the 2016 G20 Summit), which was held on 4-5 September of 2016. The probable reason why Hangzhou is choosed as the host city is that it has beautiful natural scenery, including world's famous west lake and many other famous scenic spots. In December 2015, President Xi Jinping announced that China would host the 2016 G20 Summit in Hangzhou. Hangzhou, 200 km distance to Shanghai, is the capital of Zhejiang province and located in Yangzi River Delta (Figure 1). It covers an area of 16,596 km 2 , with a population of 9.19 million. Hangzhou, as the other large cities, had a rapid economic growth in the past 20 years (Huang & Du, 2015;Du & Huang, 2017). Hangzhou's per capita GDP is 120,271 Yuan in 2016 (amount to $18,107), ranked the 10th largest city in China.
The Chinese government attached great importance to this summit, as it is the first time that China hosted the G20 Summit. The Chinese central government appropriated US$18 billion (almost half the cost of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games or equal to the cost of the Guangzhou 2010 Asian Games) to Hangzhou for preparing the 2016 G20 Summit. To prepare for the G20 Summit, the Hangzhou city government carried out 605 projects including venue construction, transportation infrastructure construction and environment upgrading, most of which began after the announcement of the 2016 G20 Summit. First, the city government built the Olympic Sports Expo Town, encompassing 583.89 hectares, and located the G20 Summit venue in that town. Second, the city government upgraded the transportation infrastructure, including building ten lines of urban express road, six lines of subway, four lines of urban light railway and tunnels. Third, the city government made great efforts to renovate and upgrade the urban environment, including greening the city entrance area, renovating old neighborhoods' outer wall and regenerating the street appearance. Fourth, in terms of air quality, the government took action to close plants within a 150 km radius of Hangzhou central area, adding more green traffic measures and traffic control. Fifth, in term of security, Hangzhou increased the security service, including police, security check sites and devices, following the declaration that it would be hosting the G20 Summit.
These public investments and projects advanced Hangzhou's city image, transportation condition and urban environment, and thus improved the city's investment potential. Hangzhou has attracted more outside developers and investors to the real estate market since the announcement of hosting the 2016 G20 Summit. Many developers anticipated good news and expected the potential economic benefit of hosting the G20 Summit, and they bid up land prices in the land market.

China's urban land market
Since the opening of the urban land market in 1988, urban land can be sold as use rights were separated from ownership (Ho & Lin, 2003;Zhu, 2005). Local governments are the de fact owners of land and they monopolize land supply in the primary land market (Tao et al., 2010;Wang et al., 2012). They sell residential and commercial land at high price for revenue and finance, while sell industrial land at low price for attracting investments and firms (Ding & Lichtenberg, 2011).
Urban land can be sold to potential users via four transaction methods. One is negotiation, which is a nonmarket transaction method and requires one-to-one negotiation (Lin & Ho, 2005). The other three are market transaction methods, including tender, auction and listing, which are more transparent and competitive (Huang & Du, 2017a). Local government generally sell residential and commercial land by market transaction methods, while they sell industrial land by negotiation (Cai et al., 2013;Huang & Du, 2017b).
China's current land-based development model (so called the land-finance or land-revenue model) would promote the capitalization effect of holding mega-events. Land is used to finance urban construction and infrastructure investment, which also fuel up the real estate prices for capturing land revenues from land market . Under such background, holding Mega-events including G20 Summit and Olympic Games, would booster the land prices (Zhao et al., 2017).

Econometric specification
For investigating the effect of hosting the G20 Summit on the land market, we employ a hedonic price model. Our identification strategy is to exploit a quasi-experimental approach. In particular, we use a difference-in-difference hedonic price model to address the omitted variables problem which often plagues traditional hedonic models. For example, the traditional hedonic models would be biased if the G20 Summit were chosen to be hosted in an area with high land prices. The difference-in-difference estimation model is specified as follows: In Equation (1), the dependent variable log(P ict ) is the log of the price of land parcel i in city c at time t. Our variable of interest is the interaction term of the G20 treat city dummy (Treat) and treat period (PostG20). Treat is a dummy variable equals to 1 if land parcel i is in the treat group, and PostG20 is a dummy for land parcel i transacted after the G20 Summit. The coefficient of Treat × PostG20, g, represents the average differences between host and non-host cities relative to the base time period, which is the average treatment effect of hosting the G20 Summit on land prices. X ict are a set of parcellevel control variables. Our data provides land parcel characteristics including land area, land location grades (there are 18 levels of land location grade, assessed and published by city government), 7 categories of land usage, 2 types of land source and so on. We control the city fixed effect, u i , and year-month fixed effect, v t . In estimation, the effect of treatment dummy, Treat, is absorbed by city fixed effects.

Data description
We constructed a Chinese national land transaction dataset, collected from http://www.landchina.com/. It includes 345,076 land parcels for residential and commercial use, which is traded via market transaction methods in China from January 2011 to December 2019. It includes each parcel's characteristics such as selling price, area, location, land usage, transaction method, date and so on. These land parcels were sold by market transaction methods (tender, listing or auction), whose prices is determined by market. According to the preliminary statistics, 77 percent of land parcels are traded by listing method and 22 percent of parcels by auction method. More details of definition and descriptive statistics of main variables are presented in Table 1.
Our analysis consists of 197 Chinese prefecture cities. We group these cities into two categories. Hangzhou was the treatment group. We also define the other 10 cities within Zhejiang Province as an alternative treatment group, because these cities belong to the "G20 Environment Protection Cities". We also assign alternative control groups and use synthetic control method for robustness analysis. Figure 1 shows the location of our sample, which covered almost provincial capital and prefecture cities of China. other cities after the G20 Summit. Due to fact that the land prices in the host city after the G20 Summit may be driven up by some omitted variables, we introduce some more control variables in columns 2-4. The coefficients on the Treat × PostG20 are all statistically significant and positive.
To address the multicollinearity issue, we employed VIFs (variance inflation factor) test and found no significant multicollinearity problem (VIFs of main variables is less than 5). The coefficient of Treat × PostG20 in column 4 suggests that land prices in the G20 Summit host city increase by 22.6% more than in other cities. The above results suggest that the hosting G20 Summit has a significant impact on land prices in the host city compared to other cities.

Time-varying effect by G20 treatment periods
We next examine how the effects of hosting the G20 Summit on land prices vary by period. We decompose the G20 treatment period into two spans: preparation period (PrepG20, December 2015-August 2016) and post period (PostG20, after September 2016). As shown in Table 3, host city's land prices increase significantly in G20 preparation and post periods. Compared with the preparation period, land prices increased more in the post G20 period, suggesting that positive expectation or anticipated capitalization effect of the G20 also raise the land prices in the host city.

Baseline results
Table 2 presents the baseline results. Column 1 reports the results of regressing land price (in logarithmic form) on Treat × PostG20 without including any controls. The coefficient of Treat × PostG20 is 0.392, indicating that land prices in the host city increased by 39.2% more than in

Spatial heterogeneous effect of G20 on land prices
For exploring the spatial heterogeneous effect of the G20 on land prices, we define two group of cities (strictly environmental regulation areas and environmental regulation areas) within Zhejiang Province as "G20 Environmental Protection Cities" according to the G20 Summit Environmental Protection Program published by the Zhejiang Province government. These cities also implemented strict measures of environment protection for supporting the host of G20 Summit in Hangzhou. The first group of cities, referred to as strictly environmental regulation areas (within 150 km distance to Hangzhou), include Ningbo, Huzhou, Jiaxing, Shaoxing, Jinhua and Quzhou (Treat 1 ). The second group of cities are environmental regulation areas (150-300 km distance to Hangzhou), including Wenzhou, Zhoushan, Taizhou and Lishui (Treat 2 ). We run the following regression: where the coefficients on Treat × PostG20, Treat 1 × PostG20 and Treat 2 × PostG20 represent the effect of hosting G20 Summit on land prices in the different groups of potential treated cities. Table 4 presents the heterogeneous effect of the G20 on land prices. In columns 1-4, the coefficients of Treat × PostG20 are all significantly positive. The coefficients of Treat 1 × PostG20 are only minor significant in column 1. However, the coefficients of Treat 2 × PostG20 are not significant. These results suggest that hosting the G20 Summit does not have significant spatial heterogeneous effects on land prices in other supporting cities.

Heterogeneous effect of G20 on land prices across residential and commercial land
We next separate the residential and commercial land samples and test the heterogeneous effects of hosting the G20 Summit. Table 5 provides the estimation results. The coefficients of Treat × PostG20 are both significant and positive in columns 1-2, indicating that hosting the G20 Summit has significantly positively effects for residential and commercial land. The effect is larger for residential land than that for commercial land. This is because that the benefit of urban infrastructure construction and environment upgrading for hosting the G20 Summit is easier to be capitalized into the residential land price than into commercial land price, especially in city with restricted residential land supply.

Addressing other policies' effects
We further test the potential effects of other policies for excluding the possibilities that the increase in land prices may be induced by other policies. In 2011 and 2019, Hangzhou city government put forward two important housing control policies, which may affect land prices.  Table 6 presents the estimation results. The coefficients of Treat×PostG20 keep significantly positive after controlling the above two policies and across columns 1-4. This result confirms that the effects of hosting G20 Summit on land prices is not induced by other policies.

Parallel trend test
We further test the parallel trend assumption underlying our difference-in-difference approach. We estimate Equation (1) to investigate the dynamic effect of the residential land prices responding to G20 Summit, using the same control variables. Figure 2 presents the parallel trend test results for the coefficients of interaction (treat*yearquarter), which shows the estimated land price difference between the treated and control groups. The average land price difference is almost statistically insignificant before the announcement of G20 Summit and in 2013-2015, but began to increase and became positive and statistically significant during the construction period, which supports the parallel trend assumption of the same trend before the event. As Hangzhou city government published housing purchasing policy in September 19, 2016 (15 days after the opening of G20 Summit), land prices decreased and the average land price difference between the treated and control groups becomes insignificant for 2 quarters. However, it began to increase and positive for the most quarters of 2018-2019, which also overall supports the parallel trend assumption.

Results of synthetic control method
We next use synthetic control method for addressing the concern of using the non-G20 host cities as the control group. We use log GDP, log population, third industrial output ratio, log investment, log foreign direct investment as predictor variables for constructing synthetic control group and calculating the weights. Table 7 presents log land prices predictor means for treated and synthetic group, comparing the pretreatment characteristics between actual Hangzhou and synthetic Hangzhou. As seen, the land prices predictor means between treated and synthetic group is close, and seems to provide a suitable control group for Hangzhou.  Figure 3 shows displays the log land prices for Hangzhou (treated group) and its synthetic counterpart (weighted average of other Chinese cities). There is parallel trend for the land prices among treated and synthetic control groups before the hosting G20 Summit. The log land prices of treated group respond with a lag and then significantly rise after the G20 Summit compared to synthetic control group. However, the log land prices of synthetic control group decrease in 2017, and the price difference between treated and synthetic control groups become much larger after the G20 Summit. The result of synthetic control method again confirms the above results and the assumption of parallel trend.

Impact channels of hosting the G20 Summit on the land market
We further investigate the channels through which hosting the G20 Summit affects host city' land prices. Although the above analysis suggests that land prices increased in Hangzhou during and after the 2016 G20 Summit, it is important to explore which actions or investments were effective in increasing Hangzhou's land prices, to guide future policy intervention. Four major kinds of investments were implemented during the preparation period: venue construction, transportation infrastructure construction, urban environment upgrading and air quality protection. Distinguishing between these actions is difficult, for they overlap in time and their effects take time to emerge and dissipate. This section focusses on the location and timing of venue and transportation infrastructure construction in Hangzhou. Figure 4 shows the spatial locations of the G20-related venue, transportation infrastructure projects and selected land parcels. As shown, the selected land parcels are spatially distributed over all eight districts of Hangzhou and have much variance in distance to the G20-related venue or transportation infrastructure projects.   Table 8 reports the results for the impact of G20 main venue construction on land prices. In column 1, the coefficient on 10 km distance to Venue×PostG20 is statistically insignificant. The results in columns 2-3 show that the coefficients of 10-20 km distance to Venue×PostG20 and 20-40 km distance to Venue×PostG20 are both significantly positive. Column 4 shows that the land near the G20 venue has a significant price premium after the G20 Summit. Comparing the coefficients in column 4, the proximity value of the G20 venue is largest with 10-20 km distance to the venue, To examine the effects of G20-related investment projects on land prices, we use a set of dummy variables for different levels of distance to the G20 main venue or transportation infrastructure junction, including <10 km, 10-20 km and 20-40 km. Compared to the previous literature of the externalities effects on nearby housing price, our sample divisions for distance are larger as our land transaction data sample are more spatially dispersed. We also control land parcel characteristic, locational (land location grade, distance to CBD, distance to closest subway and bus station), and environmental attributes (distance to West Lake, Xixi Wetland, and Qiantang River). second in 20-40 km distance to the venue and least within 10 km distance to the venue. Compared to existing evidence that sports facilities influence property values within a range of 3-5 km (Ahlfeldt & Maennig, 2010;Ahlfeldt & Kavetsos, 2014), the impact of the G20 main venue on land prices is much larger and within a wide range of 0-40 km.

Impact of transportation infrastructure upgrading on land prices
To prepare for the G20 Summit, Hangzhou city implemented two main transportation infrastructure upgrading projects. One was the G20-related expressway, named the airport expressway, connecting the G20 venue and the airport. The other was the Zizhi Tunnel, the city's fourth arterial highway, which improved the connectedness of the west and east areas of Hangzhou to the east of city. These two key projects improved Hangzhou's transportation infrastructure and investment environment. They are hypothesized to increase land prices in the areas of benefit. Table 9 presents the results of the effect of G20-related expressway construction on land prices. In column 4, land parcels near the G20-related expressway increased after the G20 Summit. In comparison, land prices increased more at a 10-40 km distance from the expressway than within 10 km. This suggests that the capitalization effects of the G20-related expressway on land prices are larger over 10 km away. Table 10 provides the results of the effect of G20-related tunnel construction on land prices. Column 4 shows that land parcels near the G20-related tunnel increased in price after the G20 Summit. In comparison, land prices increased more at 10-40 km from the expressway than within 10 km. These results are similar to those of the effect of the G20-related expressway on land prices.
Overall, the above micro parcel-level analysis of land prices within Hangzhou city shows that both G20 venue and transportation infrastructure construction raise land price after the G20 Summit.

Conclusions
Based on national land transaction data, our study provides empirical evidences for the effects of the 2016 G20 Summit on the land market. First, we find that the G20 Summit significantly increases land prices in the host city by 22.6%. The economic benefit of hosting the G20 Summit would be about 51.1 billion yuan (7.6 billion dollar) annually (22.6%×226.2 billion yuan of land sale revenue in the primary land market of Hangzhou in 2017), which is less than the amount of investment, 120 billion yuan. However, considering the capitalization effect of hosting G20 Summit on the real estate market and the increase of business environment, the benefit would be larger and probably more than the cost, which need further study. Second, we find spatial and temporal heterogeneous effects of the G20 Summit on the land market. The impact of the G20 Summit on the land market is larger in the post-G20 period than that in the preparation period. Third, we find evidence for sizable spatial heterogeneous effects of the G20 Summit on land prices. Fourth, we also investigate the mechanisms through which hosting the G20 Summit affects the land market and find that the capitalization effects of G20 venue construction and transportation infrastructure upgrading on land prices are the two significant channels. Our study offer several policy implications. First, hosting the G20 Summit can have positive effects on the land market in the host city, implying a positive economic benefit. However, this capitalization effect may have unintended consequences. The increased land prices may raise the cost of living and production, and thus would harm the city's competitiveness. The governments should realize the land price effect of mega-event and regulate the land market for suppressing prices. The capitalization effect of public investment has a perverse effect in that it benefits property owners rather than the host city's newcomers and renters. The government should use property tax for value capture and subsidize the worse-off newcomers and renters. Further, given the large amount of capital, resources and investment provided to host the mega-event, issues of equity, distributional justice and efficiency should become an important concern for public policy. The government should well understand the heterogeneous effects of the mega-event's and implement the balance development policy for improving region's efficiency and equity under the mega-event.
Our study relates to the literature on cost-benefit analyses of mega-events. We explore the land market impacts of the G20 Summit, taking Hangzhou as a case. Whether our results can apply to other G20 Summit cities need further study. The effects of hosing G20 Summit may depend on city's size, industry structure, development stage and project investments. However, our analysis and methodology would enlighten further research on the capitalization effects of mega-events.