Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Impacts of dual decentralization on green total factor productivity: evidence from China’s economic transition

  • 25 Accesses

Abstract

China’s fiscal decentralization has the dual characteristics of revenue decentralization and expenditure decentralization, and their impacts on green total factor productivity are also different. By calculating the Malmquist-Luenburger index and using the Spatial Durbin Model, this study examines the effects of dual decentralization on green total factor productivity (GTFP) from the perspective of fiscal competition. It was found that revenue decentralization significantly hindered the improvement of a local area’s GTFP, and that the impact of fiscal revenue competition on a local area’s GTFP is also significantly negative. The expenditure decentralization and the fiscal expenditure competition among different areas are conducive to improving the local area’s GTFP. Moreover, the impact of revenue decentralization on efficiency improvement is significantly negative, while the expenditure decentralization is conducive to technical progress. All these findings may provide enlightenment for optimizing China’s fiscal decentralization and promoting high-quality economic development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. 1.

    Source: China Statistical Yearbook.

  2. 2.

    Source: Report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.

  3. 3.

    TFP mainly reflects the ratio of total output to real input of all production factors in the process of economic growth. Here, total output mainly refers to economic output (such as GDP), and input factors include labour and capital. However, GTFP includes the environmental benefits in the process of economic growth, and the total outputs include not only the economic output, but also the environmental output (the undesired output mentioned later, such as environmental pollution), the input factors include not only the labour and capital, but also the energy. Therefore, compared with TFP, GTFP comprehensively considers the dual constraints of economic growth and environmental quality, and the calculation results are more targeted, more accurate, and more practical.

  4. 4.

    Limited to space, we do not introduce the decomposition process of the direct effect and indirect effect in detail here. The specific content can refer to the Lesage and Pace (2009).

  5. 5.

    It should be noted that θ in Eq. (2) is used to represent fiscal competition, its economic meaning is consistent with the indirect effect here. But the indirect effect is the “net effect” after decomposition with the partial differential method. Therefore, we also report the results of θ and indirect effects.

  6. 6.

    In terms of the research method selection, compared with the SFA (Stochastic Frontier Analysis method), the DEA is based on the linear programming analysis method, which does not need to set the form of production function subjectively, and avoids the measurement error caused by subjectivity. Therefore, this study uses the DEA method to calculate the ML index considering undesired output, and to measure GTFP.

  7. 7.

    In later robustness test, we will measure the ML index based on the variable returns to scale again.

  8. 8.

    “The first law of geography” refers to the fact that any economic thing is related to the other things, and things closer in distance are always more intimate than the things in a far distance (Tobler 1970).

References

  1. Anselin L, Gallo JL (2006) Interpolation of air quality measures in hedonic house price models: spatial aspects. Spat Econ Anal 1(1):31–52

  2. Arbia G, Ghiringhelli C, Mira A (2019) Estimation of spatial econometric linear models with large datasets: how big can spatial big data be? Reg Sci Urban Econ 76:67–73

  3. Banzhaf HS, Chupp BA (2012) Fiscal federalism and interjurisdictional externalities: new results and an application to US air pollution. J Public Econ 96:449–464

  4. Bernauer T, Koubi V (2006) States as providers of public goods: how does government size affect environmental quality? SSRN

  5. Bian YC, Song KY, Bai JH (2019) Market segmentation, resource misallocation and environmental pollution. J Clean Prod 228:376–387

  6. Borck R, Caliendo M, Steiner V (2006) Fiscal competition and the composition of public spending: theory and evidence. IZA Working Paper, No. 2428

  7. Cai JY, Zhang JH (2018) Fiscal decentralization and environmental governance: evidence from province-managing-county reforms. Econ Perspect 1:53–68

  8. Cai F, Du Y, Wang MY (2008) The political economy of emission in China: will a low carbon growth be incentive compatible in next decade and beyond? Econ Res J 6:4–11

  9. Chung YH, Fare R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 51:229–240

  10. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (1994) North-south trade and the environment. Q J Econ 109:755–787

  11. Edmark K, Agren H (2008) Identifying strategic interactions in Swedish local income tax policies. J Urban Econ 63(3):849–857

  12. Elhorst JP (2012) Dynamic spatial panels: models, methods and inferences. J Geogr Syst 14(1):5–28

  13. Farhadi M (2015) Transport infrastructure and long-run economic growth in OECD countries. Transp Res A Policy Pract 74:73–90

  14. Fredriksson PG, Wollscheid JR (2014) Environmental decentralization and political centralization. Ecol Econ 107:402–410

  15. Halkos G, Paizanos E (2013) The effect of government expenditure on the environment: an empirical investigation. Ecol Econ 91:48–56

  16. Huang SF (2017) Study on the impact of fiscal decentralization on smog pollution in China. J World Econ 2:127–152

  17. Jin H, Qian Y, Weingast BR (2005) Regional decentralization and fiscal incentives: federalism, Chinese style. J Public Econ 89(9–10):1719–1742

  18. Jin G, Shen KY, Li J (2018) Interjurisdiction political competition and green total factor productivity in China: an inverted-U relationship. China Econ Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2018.09.005

  19. LeSage JP, Pace RK (2008) Spatial econometric modeling of origin-destination flows. J Reg Sci 48(5):941–967

  20. LeSage JP, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman & Hall CRC Press, Boca Raton

  21. Li K, Lin BQ (2017) Economic growth model, structural transformation, and green productivity in China. Appl Energy 187:489–500

  22. Li B, Wu SS (2017) Effects of local and civil environmental regulation on green total factor productivity in China: a spatial Durbin econometric analysis. J Clean Prod 153:342–353

  23. Li B, Qi Y, Li Q (2016) Fiscal decentralization, FDI and green total factor productivity: an empirical test of dynamic GMM method based on panel data. J Int Trade 7:119–129

  24. Lin BQ, Chen ZY (2018) Does factor market distortion inhibit the green total factor productivity in China? J Clean Prod 197:25–33

  25. Lopez R, Galinato GI, Islam A (2011) Fiscal spending and the environment: theory and empirics. J Environ Econ Manag 62(2):180–198

  26. Oates WE (1972) Fiscal federalism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, New York

  27. Oates WE, Portney RR (2003) The political economy of environmental policy. In: Maler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics. Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam

  28. Ogawa H, Wildasin DE (2009) Think locally, act locally: spillovers, spillbacks, and efficient decentralized policy making. Am Econ Rev 99:1206–1217

  29. Paas T, Schlitte F (2006) Regional income inequality and convergence processes in the EU-25. ERSA Conference Papers, No. ersa06p229

  30. Pittman RW (1983) Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Econ J 93:883–891

  31. Sigman H (2014) Decentralization and environmental quality: an international analysis of water pollution levels and variation. Land Econ 90(1):114–130

  32. Song ML, Du JT, Tan KH (2018) Impact of fiscal decentralization on green total factor productivity. Int J Prod Econ 205:359–367

  33. Stewart R (1977) Pyramids of sacrifice? Problems of federalism in mandating state implementation of national environmental policy. Yale Law J 86:1196–1272

  34. Stigler G (1957) The tenable range of functions of local government. In: federal expenditure policy for economic growth and stability. Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Fiscal Politics, Washington DC, 213–219

  35. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240

  36. Uchimura H, Jütting JP (2009) Fiscal decentralization, Chinese style: good for health outcomes? World Dev 37(12):1926–1934

  37. World Bank (1994) Annual report. Washington, World Bank

  38. Wu HT, Li YW, Hao Y, Ren SY, Zhang PF (2019) Environmental decentralization, local government competition, and regional green development: evidence from China. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135085

  39. Yang ZA, Wang JY (2018) Study on fiscal decentralization system and green total factor productivity: inspection based on system GMM and the threshold effect. Ecol Econ 34(11):132–139

  40. Yu YZ, Liu DY (2013) The effect of the space outflow of China’s regional innovation and the effect of the outflow of value chains: a study from the perspective of the innovative value chain, on the model of the panel of multidimensional space. Manag World 7:6–20

  41. Yuyu C, Avraham E, Michael G, Hongbin L (2013) Evidence on the impact of sustained exposure to air pollution on life expectancy from China’s Huai River policy. PNAS 110(32):12936–12941

  42. Zeng F (2012) Environmental pollution in China. Sci Technol Inf 33:142

  43. Zhang K, Wang J, Cui X (2011) Fiscal decentralization and environmental pollution: from the perspective of carbon emission. China Ind Econ 10:65–75

  44. Zhang K, Zhang ZY, Liang QM (2017) An empirical analysis of the green paradox in China: from the perspective of fiscal decentralization. Energy Policy 103:203–211

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No.71573138]; the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No.71874084]; and the Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province [Grant No. KYCX19_0709].

Author information

Correspondence to Yuanchao Bian.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

the authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Eyup Dogan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, K., Bian, Y., Zhu, C. et al. Impacts of dual decentralization on green total factor productivity: evidence from China’s economic transition. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07953-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dual decentralization
  • Green total factor productivity
  • Fiscal competition
  • Spatial Durbin Model