4.7 Article

Has the anti-corruption campaign decreased air pollution in China?

Journal

ENERGY ECONOMICS
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104878

Keywords

Anti-corruption campaign; Air pollution; Environmental regulation; Multi-period difference in differences; Economic growth; Heterogeneity

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71704065]
  2. Key Project of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research of Ministry of Education of China [17JZD013]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities-Ningjingzhiyuan Project of Jinan University [19JNQM21]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province of China [2020A151501226]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few studies have estimated the contribution made by anti-corruption to air pollution levels. Using city-level data for the period from 2009 to 2016, this paper analyzes the effects of China's 2013 anti-corruption campaign on air pollution levels. The anti-corruption campaign being implemented by the Chinese government since 2013 is treated as an exogenous policy shock, and a multi-period difference in differences model is used to examine the effects of the campaign on air pollution levels. This study further conducts mechanism analysis from two aspects: environmental regulation and economic development to illustrate the potential mechanism of the effects of the anti-corruption campaign on air pollution. Our results indicate that the anti-corruption campaign has reduced air pollution by 20.3% and that this pollution-reduction effect of anti-corruption is heterogeneous in terms of urban resource attribute and geographical difference. The mechanism analysis also suggests that this pollution reduction effect could be achieved partially through the increased intensity of environmental regulations and the increase in economic development. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available