Can a low-carbon development path achieve win-win development: evidence from China’s low-carbon pilot policy
Low-carbon pilot (LCP) policy aims to not only achieve economic development but also address climate change problems in China. With a difference-in-difference (DID) approach, this study provides empirical evidence to support the policy’s implementation by analysing its impacts on green total factor productivity (GTFP). We find that the implementation of the low-carbon pilot policy has a significant positive impact on GTFP. The low-carbon pilot policy significantly improves the GTFP in the year following implementation, and its efficacy diminishes over time. In terms of mechanism analysis, the policy enables China to achieve win-win development through industry structure adjustment and foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows. Innovation does not immediately improve GTFP, although the low-carbon pilot policy promotes regional innovation. Our results provide strong support for China’s recent third set of low-carbon pilot policies. As for global mitigation strategy, countries should incorporate the low-carbon development path into their strategic planning. In particular, developing countries should enforce more efforts on low-carbon development as such development path may improve their green productivity. It helps narrow the gap between developing and developed countries.
KeywordsLow carbon pilot policy Win-win development Green total factor productivity Difference-in-difference
This study received financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71771082, 71371067, 71420107027 and 71673083) and Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2017JJ1012).
- Gray WB (1987) The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA and the productivity slowdown. Am Econ Rev 77(5):998–1006Google Scholar
- Greenstone M, List JA, Syverson C (2012) The effects of environmental regulation on the competitiveness of US manufacturing. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
- Korhonen J, Pätäri S, Toppinen A, Tuppura A (2015) The role of environmental regulation in the future competitiveness of the pulp and paper industry: the case of the sulfur emissions directive in Northern Europe. J Clean Prod 108:864–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kou ZL, Liu XY (2017) FIND Report on City and Industrial Innovation in China, Fudan Institute of Industrial Development. Fudan University, School of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
- Liang CY (2009) Industrial structure changes and the measurement of total factor productivity growth: the Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young Hypothesis revisited. Academia Economic Papers 37:305–338Google Scholar
- NDRC (2010) Notice of the national development and reform commission on launching low carbon provinces and cities pilot. National Development and Reform of ChinaGoogle Scholar
- NDRC (2017) Notice of the national development and reform commission on launching the third batch pilot of low carbon cities. National Development and Reform of ChinaGoogle Scholar
- Tanaka S, Yin W, Jefferson GH (2014) Environmental regulation and industrial performance: evidence from China. Work. Pap., Tufts Univ., MedfordGoogle Scholar
- Walter I, Ugelow JL (1979) Environmental policies in developing countries. Ambio 8(2):102–109Google Scholar
- Wei YP (2016) 52 cities are applying to be the third batch of LCCPs, and they will set carbon peak targets. Beijing: The 21st Century Economic Report.Google Scholar
- Zhao L, Lin J, Zhu J (2015) Green total factor productivity of hog breeding in China: application of SE-SBM Model and Grey Relation Matrix. Pol J Environ Stud 24(1):403–412Google Scholar