Next Article in Journal
Pediatrics Consequences of Caesarean Section—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Trends and Associated Factors of Dietary Knowledge among Chinese Older Residents: Results from the China Health and Nutrition Survey 2004–2015
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 21
10.3390/ijerph17218027
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Productivity Effect Evaluation on Market-Type Environmental Regulation: A Case Study of SO2 Emission Trading Pilot in China

by
Yanhong Feng
1,
Shuanglian Chen
2,* and
Pierre Failler
3
1
School of Economics and Statistics, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
2
Guangzhou International Institute of Finance and Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
3
Economics and Finance Group, Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3DE, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(21), 8027; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218027
Submission received: 16 September 2020 / Revised: 23 October 2020 / Accepted: 28 October 2020 / Published: 31 October 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Taking China’s SO2 emissions trading pilot (ETP) in 2007, a large-scale market-based environmental regulation as its target, this paper reexamines the strong Porter hypothesis by adopting the method of propensity score matching-differences-in-differences. Research shows the following results: first, SO2 ETP which provides high flexibility for enterprises in the process of emission reduction, improves total factor productivity (TFP) significantly on the whole. Second, the productivity effect of market-based environmental regulation varies from the productivity level of enterprise. For example, the SO2 ETP has a significant effect on TFP only at 40–80 percent quantile of TFP, and the effect increases at first and then decreases. Third, the financing constraints and bargaining power of enterprises have significant negative moderating effects on the impact of SO2 ETP on TFP, and the moderating effects between state-owned and non-state-owned enterprises exist heterogeneity. In conclusion, it provides reference for the formulation of market-type environmental regulations and the realization of high-quality development for developing countries.
Keywords: environmental regulation; emission trading; TFP; PSM-DID environmental regulation; emission trading; TFP; PSM-DID

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Feng, Y.; Chen, S.; Failler, P. Productivity Effect Evaluation on Market-Type Environmental Regulation: A Case Study of SO2 Emission Trading Pilot in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218027

AMA Style

Feng Y, Chen S, Failler P. Productivity Effect Evaluation on Market-Type Environmental Regulation: A Case Study of SO2 Emission Trading Pilot in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):8027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218027

Chicago/Turabian Style

Feng, Yanhong, Shuanglian Chen, and Pierre Failler. 2020. "Productivity Effect Evaluation on Market-Type Environmental Regulation: A Case Study of SO2 Emission Trading Pilot in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 21: 8027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218027

APA Style

Feng, Y., Chen, S., & Failler, P. (2020). Productivity Effect Evaluation on Market-Type Environmental Regulation: A Case Study of SO2 Emission Trading Pilot in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218027

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop