IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v220y2024ics0921800924000508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Synergistic effect of environmental governance instruments embedded in social contexts: A case study of China

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Yang
  • Zhang, Yuchen
  • Zhao, Xiaoli
  • Farnoosh, Arash
  • Ma, Ruoran

Abstract

Facing unprecedented environmental and climate challenges, governments around the world are gradually realizing that portfolios of environmental policy instruments (PEPIs) are critical for generating innovative approaches to tackle pollution and CO2 emission. However, configuring the “right” policy package is challenging due to different social contexts. This study introduces a novel research framework, integrating a comprehensive methodology to analyze PEPIs across Chinese provinces with varied ecological foundations, innovation capabilities, and governance goals. Our approach is innovative in its integration use of fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to unravel the complex interplay between policy instruments and social contexts. We found that neither individual policy instruments nor social contextual factors alone guarantee high environmental performance. Furthermore, configurations of policy instruments and social contexts are sufficient conditions for high environmental performance. We identified 17 configurations centered on regulation, innovation supports, and information provisions for pollution reduction in various social contexts, and 23 configurations centered on market instruments, regulation and innovation supports for CO2 abatement. Furthermore, our regression analysis quantifies the impact of these configurations, highlighting that a mix of innovation supports, market instruments, and information provisions yields the best synergistic effect for both pollution reduction and CO2 abatement. This study not only contributes to the understanding of environmental policy effectiveness but also provides practical insights for policy formulation in varied social contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Yang & Zhang, Yuchen & Zhao, Xiaoli & Farnoosh, Arash & Ma, Ruoran, 2024. "Synergistic effect of environmental governance instruments embedded in social contexts: A case study of China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000508
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924000508
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108153?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    2. Steven Sorrell, 2003. "Carbon Trading in the Policy Mix," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(3), pages 420-437.
    3. Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 355-435, Elsevier.
    4. Tapio, Petri, 2005. "Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 137-151, March.
    5. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    6. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    7. Arne L. Kalleberg & Stephen Vaisey, 2005. "Pathways to a Good Job: Perceived Work Quality among the Machinists in North America," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 431-454, September.
    8. Zhang, Pengpeng & Zhang, Lixiao & Tian, Xin & Hao, Yan & Wang, Changbo, 2018. "Urban energy transition in China: Insights from trends, socioeconomic drivers, and environmental impacts of Beijing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 173-183.
    9. Quitzow, Rainer, 2015. "Assessing policy strategies for the promotion of environmental technologies: A review of India's National Solar Mission," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 233-243.
    10. William Q Judge & Stav Fainshmidt & J Lee Brown III, 2014. "Which model of capitalism best delivers both wealth and equality?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 45(4), pages 363-386, May.
    11. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    12. Alexandra Lesnikowski & James D. Ford & Robbert Biesbroek & Lea Berrang-Ford, 2019. "A policy mixes approach to conceptualizing and measuring climate change adaptation policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 447-469, October.
    13. Donal Crilly, 2011. "Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 42(5), pages 694-717, June.
    14. Feifei Jiang & Xiaoying Zheng & Di Fan & Pengxiang Zhang & Sali Li, 2021. "The Sharing Economy and Business Model Design: A Configurational Approach," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 949-976, June.
    15. Lopolito, Antonio & Nardone, Gianluca & Prosperi, Maurizio & Sisto, Roberta & Stasi, Antonio, 2011. "Modeling the bio-refinery industry in rural areas: A participatory approach for policy options comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 18-27.
    16. V., Oikonomou & A., Flamos & S., Grafakos, 2010. "Is blending of energy and climate policy instruments always desirable?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4186-4195, August.
    17. Anne Servantie Jacqueminet & Rodolphe Durand, 2020. "Ups and Downs: The Role of Legitimacy Judgment Cues in Practice Implementation," Working Papers hal-02896545, HAL.
    18. Zhang, Cong & Tao, Ran & Yue, Zihang & Su, Fubing, 2023. "Regional competition, rural pollution haven and environmental injustice in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    19. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    20. Delmas, Magali A. & Fischlein, Miriam & Asensio, Omar I., 2013. "Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: A meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 729-739.
    21. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    22. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
    23. Florian Kern & Michael Howlett, 2009. "Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 391-408, November.
    24. Pasquale Marcello Falcone, 2023. "Sustainable Energy Policies in Developing Countries: A Review of Challenges and Opportunities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-19, September.
    25. Andor, Mark A. & Fels, Katja M., 2018. "Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation – A Systematic Review of Non-price Interventions and Their Causal Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 178-210.
    26. Jiao, Jian-ling & Zhang, Xiao-lan & Tang, Yun-shu, 2020. "What factors determine the survival of green innovative enterprises in China? -- A method based on fsQCA," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    27. Aiora Zabala, 2021. "Comparing policy instruments for sustainability," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 565-566, July.
    28. Kun-Huang Huarng & Tiffany Hui-Kuang Yu, 2017. "Using qualitative approach to forecasting regime switches," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 2035-2048, September.
    29. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Sewerin, Sebastian, 2019. "Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    30. Schubert, Christian, 2017. "Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-342.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    2. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Lopolito, Antonio & Sica, Edgardo, 2019. "Instrument mix for energy transition: A method for policy formulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    4. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Bjerkan, Kristin Ystmark & Seter, Hanne, 2021. "Policy and politics in energy transitions. A case study on shore power in Oslo," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    6. Trotter, Philipp A. & Brophy, Aoife, 2022. "Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    7. Naimeh Mohammadi & Hamid Mostofi & Hans-Liudger Dienel, 2023. "Policy Chain of Energy Transition from Economic and Innovative Perspectives: Conceptual Framework and Consistency Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, August.
    8. Howoldt, David, 2024. "Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    9. Karoline S. Rogge & Elisabeth Dütschke, 2017. "Exploring Perceptions of the Credibility of Policy Mixes: The Case of German Manufacturers of Renewable Power Generation Technologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-23, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    10. Kanger, Laur & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Noorkõiv, Martin, 2020. "Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    11. Nuñez-Jimenez, Alejandro & Knoeri, Christof & Hoppmann, Joern & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2022. "Beyond innovation and deployment: Modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies in Germany's solar policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    12. Imbert, Enrica & Ladu, Luana & Morone, Piergiuseppe & Quitzow, Rainer, 2017. "Policy strategies for a transition to a bioeconomy in Europe: the case of Italy and Germany," MPRA Paper 78143, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    14. Malhotra, Abhishek, 2022. "Trade-offs and synergies in power sector policy mixes: The case of Uttar Pradesh, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    15. Yongqing Xiong & Shufeng Qin, 2021. "Differences in the effects of China’s new energy vehicle industry policies on market growth from the perspective of policy mix," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(3), pages 542-561, May.
    16. Vollebergh, Herman & van der Werf, Edwin & Vogel, Johanna, 2023. "A descriptive framework to evaluate instrument packages for the low-carbon transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    17. Verónica Robert & Gabriel Yoguel, 2022. "Exploration of trending concepts in innovation policy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 259-292, July.
    18. Jiang, Zihao & Shi, Jiarong, 2023. "Government intervention and technological innovation in the wind power industry in China: The role of industrial environmental turbulence," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 344(C).
    19. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    20. Borozan, Dj, 2022. "Detecting a structure in the European energy transition policy instrument mix: What mix successfully drives the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.