4.7 Article

Different Types of Environmental Regulations and Heterogeneous Influence on Green Productivity: Evidence from China

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 104-112

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.019

关键词

China; Green productivity; Environmental regulation; The strong' Porter Hypothesis; Panel threshold model

资金

  1. Major Project of National Social Science Fund of China [15ZDA025]
  2. Doctoral Scientific Fund Project of the Ministry of Education of China [20130041110040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper attempts to examine if the strong version of Porter Hypothesis is supported in China by investigating how different regulatory instruments and the relative stringency impact green productivity. We use a slacks based measure (SBM) and Luenberger Productivity Index, accounting for undesirable outputs, to evaluate the industrial green productivity growth rates of China's 30 provinces. The estimates imply an unsustainable development model in China with significant regional differences. By employing a panel threshold model and a province-level panel dataset during 2000-2012, empirical results show that both command-and-control and market-based regulation have a non-linear relationship with and can be positively related to green productivity but with different constrains on regulation stringency: there are double thresholds with the command-and control and exists an optimal range of stringency for productivity improvement; while a single threshold has been found with the market-based regulation and its current stringency is reasonable for most of provinces. Moreover, based on China's reality, the productivity effect driven by market-based regulation is much stronger than that of the command-and-control. The mechanism of informal regulation is much more complicated. Consequently, we find evidence to support the strong Porter Hypothesis that reasonable stringency of environmental regulations may enhance rather than lower industrial competitiveness. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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