4.7 Article

Environmental regulations, environmental governance efficiency and the green transformation of China's iron and steel enterprises

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106397

关键词

Global DEA; Malmquist-Luenberger index; Environmental regulation; Environmental governance efficiency; Iron and steel enterprise

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71633006, 71874210, 71673304, 71373283]
  2. Think-Tank Major Project of Hunan Province [18ZWA07]
  3. Graduate Innovation Project of Hunan Province [CX2018B070]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on micro-level enterprise panel data from 2005 to 2014, a slack-based global data envelopment analysis (DEA) model and a global Malmquist-Luenberger index model are used to calculate the environmental governance efficiency (EGE) of China's iron and steel enterprises (ISEs). Then, the different effects of two types of environmental regulation on EGE of China's ISEs are analysed. The results show that the overall level of EGE for China's ISEs has remained low over the past 10 years. The total factor environmental governance efficiency (TFEGE) presents a decreasing trend from 2005 to 2014, and the decline in TFEGE is mainly attributed to the technical progress change index (GTPCH). Moreover, the bootstrap DEA method is used for bias correction, and the correction efficiency values are all within the confidence interval, improving the accuracy of EGE evaluation. The regression analysis results show that different types of environmental regulations exert heterogeneous effects on TFEGE. The relationship between market incentive environmental regulation and TFEGE has an inverted U-shaped, implying that although market incentive environmental regulation may improve the TFEGE in the short term, continuously increasing this intensity would inhibit it. However, command control environmental regulation and TFEGE have a positive but not significant relationship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据