The mystery of local fiscal expenditure and carbon emission growth in China

  • Juan Wang
  • Hai LiEmail author
Research Article


This study investigates the relationship between financial expenditure and carbon emission reduction using provincial-level dynamic panel data from 1996 to 2010. A positive correlation exists between the scale of financial expenditure and per capita carbon emissions, whereas a negative correlation exists between the composition of financial expenditure and per capita carbon emissions. The effects of subentry spending on the carbon emission reduction differ. An improvement in the relief structure of social security increases per capita carbon emissions, whereas an improvement in the composition of medical treatment and public health has no effect on per capita carbon emissions. Other forms of “pro-carbon emission reduction” spending lead to a reduction in per capita carbon emissions. An improvement in the composition of financial expenditure leads to a reduction in the carbon emissions of the second and third industries only. Meanwhile, the effect of the scale of financial expenditure is widespread across all industries.


Reduction of carbon emissions The scale of financial expenditure The composition of financial expenditure Spending of “pro-carbon emission reduction” Dynamic panel data 

JEL classification

Q53 O470 



The authors would like to thank Jianguo Yuan, Hui Mao, Vesterinen Anna-Mari, Georgia Tech, Imed Drine, Yongfu Huan, James Thurlow, and all those who contributed to this paper.

Funding information

This research was supported by the National Social Science foundation of China (Project Number: 18CJY021).


  1. Bernauer T, Koubi V (2006) States as providers of public goods: how does government size affect environmental quality?. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchard O, Shleifer A (2001) Federalism with and without political centralization: China versus Russia. IMF Staff Pap, 171–179Google Scholar
  3. Dixit A, Norman V (1980) Theory of international trade. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Faguet JP (2004) Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs?: evidence from Bolivia. J Public Econ 88(3):867–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grant C (2007) Estimating credit constraints among us households. Oxf Econ Pap 59(4):583–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoff K, Stiglitz J, (2000) Modern economic theory and development. In: Meier G, Stiglitz J (eds.) Frontiers of Development Economics. Oxford University Press and the World Bank, pp 389–459Google Scholar
  7. López R, Galinato GI (2007) Should governments stop subsidies to private goods? Evidence from rural Latin America. J Public Econ 91(5):1071–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. López R, Islam A (2008) When government spending serves the elites: consequences for economic growth in a context of market imperfections. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  9. Lόpez R, Galinato GI, Islam A (2011) Fiscal spending and the environment: theory and empirics. J Environ Econ Manag 62(2):180–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moretti E (2004) Workers’ education, spillovers, and productivity: evidence from plant-level production functions. Am Econ Rev 94(3):656–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Polinsky AM, Shavell S (2000) The economic theory of public enforcement of law. J Econ Lit 38(1):45–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shelton CA (2007) The size and composition of government expenditure. J Public Econ 91(11):2230–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sigman H (2014) Decentralization and environmental quality: an international analysis of water pollution. Land Econ 90(1):114–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Turnovsky SJ, Fisher WH (1995) The composition of government expenditure and its consequences for macroeconomic performance. J Econ Dyn Control 19(4):747–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang J, Zhang K (2014) Convergence of carbon dioxide emissions in different sectors in China. Energy 65(1):605–611Google Scholar
  16. Williamson OE (2000) The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit 38(3):595–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Worldbank (2006) Fiscal decentralization and rural health care in China. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhuravskaya EV (2000) Incentives to provide local public goods: fiscal federalism, Russian style. J Public Econ 76(3):337–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementWuhan Institute of TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of Business AdministrationZhongnan University of Economics and LawWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations