Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 95, Issue 1–2, pp 55–72 | Cite as

Synergistic effects of environmental regulations on carbon productivity growth in China’s major industrial sectors

  • Ge Gao
  • Ke WangEmail author
  • Chi Zhang
  • Yi-Ming Wei
Original Paper
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

It is crucial that the implementation of environmental regulations have a positive synergistic effect on carbon productivity growth (i.e., environmentally adjusted productivity growth with the consideration of carbon emissions) for China to realize its sustainable development goals because the country is currently under tripartite pressures of economic growth, carbon emissions control, and environmental pollution reduction. This paper investigates the impact of changes in environmental regulation stringency on industrial-level carbon productivity growth in China. Through utilizing the information entropy method, a new index of environmental regulation stringency is established by taking into account the effects of both pollution reduction consequences and pollution reduction measures. In addition, based on the data envelopment analysis method, a Malmquist carbon productivity index is proposed to estimate the industrial carbon productivity growth of 21 major industrial sectors in China’s 30 provinces over 2004–2014. Finally, an econometric regression model is applied to test the synergistic effects of environmental regulations on carbon productivity in China’s major industrial sectors. The results show that (1) a stringent environmental regulation is associated with an increase in overall industrial carbon productivity growth in China; (2) there exist significant pass-through effects in China’s major industrial sectors that technology can transmit effectively from leader to follower; (3) there also exist obvious follow-up effects in China’s major industrial sectors, i.e., the industrial sectors that have larger technological gaps with the leaders catch up faster than others; and (4) the environmental regulations have different effects on industrial sectors with different polluting levels, i.e., there is a positive linear relationship between environmental regulation stringency and industrial-level carbon productivity growth in low-polluting industrial sectors, a parabolic nonlinear relationship between them in high-polluting industrial sectors, and an inverted U-shaped relationship between them in moderate-polluting industrial sectors.

Keywords

China’s industrial sector Environmental regulation Industrial heterogeneity Pollution intensity Total factor carbon productivity 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We gratefully acknowledge the financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71471018, 71521002, 71761137001), the Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation (161076), the Social Science Foundation of Beijing (Grant No. 16JDGLB013), the Joint Development Program of Beijing Municipal Commission of Education, the International Clean Energy Talent Program of Chinese Scholarship Council, and the National Key R&D Program (Grant No. 2016YFA0602603).

References

  1. Ambec S, Cohen M, Elgie S, Lanoie P (2013) The Porter Hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Rev Environ Econ Policy 7(1):2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourlès R, Cette G, Lopez J, Mairesse J, Nicoletti G (2013) Do product market regulations in upstream sectors curb productivity growth? panel data evidence for OECD countries. Rev Econ Stat 95(5):1750–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BP (2017) Statistical review of world energy. http://bp.com/statisticalreview. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  4. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE (1982) The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica 50(6):1393–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen Y, Li XP (2006) Construction of panel data of china’s industries and evaluation on it’s capital deepening: 1985–2003. J Quant Tech Econ 23(10):57–68 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  6. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren B, Roos P (1992) Productivity changes in Swedish pharmacies 1980–1989: a non-parametric Malmquist approach. J Prod Anal 3(1–2):85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK (1994) Production frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 58–72Google Scholar
  8. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M (1997) Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: reply. Am Econ Rev 87(5):1040–1044Google Scholar
  9. Gordon RJ (2012) Is U.S. economic growth over? Faltering innovation confronts the six headwinds. NBER Working Papers, 4Google Scholar
  10. He K (2014) Environmental regulation intensity, industry heterogeneity and china’s industrial total factor of carbon emission performance. Forum Sci Technol China 20(4):62–67 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  11. Jaffe AB, Palmer K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev Econ Stat 79(4):610–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levinson A, Taylor MS (2008) Unmasking the pollution haven effect. Int Econ Rev 49(1):223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li XP, Lu XX (2010) International trade, pollution industry transfer and CO2, emissions in Chinese industries. China Econ 3:89–99 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  14. Li XP, Wang SB, Zhou JS (2014) Changes of carbon productivity and the evolution of export sophistication: 1992–2009. J Quant Tech Econ 9:22–39 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  15. OECD (2010) Linkages between Environmental Policy and Competitiveness, OECD Environment Working Paper No. 13Google Scholar
  16. Palmer K, Portney P (1995) Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm? J Econ Perspect 9(4):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pan JH, Zhuang G, Zheng Y (2010) Clarification of the concept of low-carbon economy and analysis of its core elements. Int Econ Rev 4:88–101 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  18. Porter ME (1991) America’s green strategy. Scientific American, New York, pp 193–246Google Scholar
  19. Porter ME, van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 94:97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rajan RG, Zingales L (1998) Financial dependence and growth. Soc Sci Electron Publ 88(3):559–586Google Scholar
  21. Tu Z (2008) The coordination of industrial growth with environment and resource. Econ Res J 2:93–105 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  22. Wang J, Liu B (2014) Environmental regulation and enterprises’ TFP—an empirical analysis based on china’s industrial enterprises data. China Ind Econ 3:44–56 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  23. Wang K, Wei YM (2016) Sources of energy productivity change in China during 1997–2012: a decomposition analysis based on the Luenberger productivity indicator. Energy Econ 54:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang B, Wu Y, Yan P (2010) Environmental efficiency and environmental total factor productivity growth in china’s regional economies. Econ Res J 5:95–109 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  25. Wang H, Wang SQ, University H, Office D (2015) A study on dynamic evolution of industrial carbon emissions performance and its factors in china. China Popul Resour Environ 25(9):29–36 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  26. Wang K, Wei YM, Huang Z (2016a) Potential gains from carbon emissions trading in China: a DEA based estimation on abatement cost savings. OMEGA-Int J Manag Sci 63:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang K, Xian Y, Zhang J, Li Y, Che L (2016b) Potential carbon emission abatement cost recovery from carbon emission trading in China: an estimation of industry sector. J Model Manag 11(3):842–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang K, Zhang X, Yu X, Wei YM, Wang B (2016c) Emissions trading and abatement cost savings: An estimation of China’s thermal power industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 65:1005–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang K, Mi Z, Wei YM (2018a) Will pollution taxes improve joint ecological and economic efficiency of thermal power industry in China? A DEA-based materials balance approach. J Ind Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12740
  30. Wang K, Wei YM, Huang Z (2018b) Environmental efficiency and abatement efficiency measurements of China’s thermal power industry: a data envelopment analysis based materials balance approach. Eur J Oper Res 269(1):35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xian Y, Wang K, Shi X, Zhang C, Wei YM, Huang Z (2018) Carbon emissions intensity reduction target for China’s power industry: an efficiency and productivity perspective. J Clean Prod 197:1022–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang C, Lu Y, Guo L et al (2011) The intensity of environmental regulation and technological progress of production. Econ Res J 2:113–124 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  33. Zhang W, Zhu Q, Li H (2013) Energy use, carbon emission and china’s total factor carbon emission reduction efficiency. Econ Res J 10:138–150 (in Chinese) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research & School of Management and EconomicsBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.Sustainable Development Research Institute for Economy and Society of BeijingBeijingChina
  3. 3.Beijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental ManagementBeijingChina
  4. 4.School of Chemical Science and EngineeringRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations