IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3570-d1071877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Energy Use Rights Trading Policy on Environmental Performance: Evidence from Chinese 262 Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Dong Le

    (School of Economics, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

  • Fei Ren

    (School of Economics, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

  • Yusong Li

    (School of Economics, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

Abstract

This study provides empirical evidence and policy inspiration for China to implement the energy use rights trading policy. Using 262 cities in China from 2005 to 2019 as samples, we employed the double difference method and mediation analysis to empirically measure the impact of energy use rights trading policy on environmental performance. First, energy use rights trading policy can improve urban environmental performance. This conclusion is valid as per the endogeneity test, parallel trend test, PSM-DID test, placebo test, and triple difference method. Second, heterogeneity analysis shows that the effect of the energy use rights trading policy on urban environmental performance will be different by the size of population. Energy use rights trading policy has the greatest effect on the environmental performance of resource-based cities. Meanwhile, compared to non-industrial base, the effect of the energy use rights trading policy on environmental performance is more pronounced in cities with older industrial base. Third, the mechanism test using the mediation effect model proved that the impact of energy use rights trading policy on environmental performance is achieved by improving the level of marketization and technological innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong Le & Fei Ren & Yusong Li, 2023. "The Effect of Energy Use Rights Trading Policy on Environmental Performance: Evidence from Chinese 262 Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3570-:d:1071877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3570/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3570/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Ke & Wei, Yi-Ming & Huang, Zhimin, 2016. "Potential gains from carbon emissions trading in China: A DEA based estimation on abatement cost savings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 48-59.
    2. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    3. Caragliu, Andrea, 2021. "Energy efficiency-enhancing policies and firm performance: Evidence from the paper and glass industries in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Hering, Laura & Poncet, Sandra, 2014. "Environmental policy and exports: Evidence from Chinese cities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 296-318.
    5. Franzò, Simone & Frattini, Federico & Cagno, Enrico & Trianni, Andrea, 2019. "A multi-stakeholder analysis of the economic efficiency of industrial energy efficiency policies: Empirical evidence from ten years of the Italian White Certificate Scheme," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 424-435.
    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. Xu, Xiaoying & Jin, Mei & Gong, Xinshu, 2024. "Local environmental goal constraint intensity and corporate ESG performance: An empirical observation based on China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(PB).
    2. Giacomo Di Foggia & Massimo Beccarello & Marco Borgarello & Francesca Bazzocchi & Stefano Moscarelli, 2022. "Market-Based Instruments to Promote Energy Efficiency: Insights from the Italian Case," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Zhang, Yanfang & Gao, Qi & Wei, Jinpeng & Shi, Xunpeng & Zhou, Dequn, 2023. "Can China's energy-consumption permit trading scheme achieve the “Porter” effect? Evidence from an estimated DSGE model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Hong, Qianqian & Cui, Linhao & Hong, Penghui, 2022. "The impact of carbon emissions trading on energy efficiency: Evidence from quasi-experiment in China's carbon emissions trading pilot," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Ni, Xiaoran & Jin, Qi & Huang, Kunhao, 2022. "Environmental regulation and the cost of debt: Evidence from the carbon emission trading system pilot in China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Wang, Kaike & Su, Xuewei & Wang, Shuhong, 2023. "How does the energy-consuming rights trading policy affect China's carbon emission intensity?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    7. Wang, Yizhong & Hang, Ye & Wang, Qunwei, 2022. "Joint or separate? An economic-environmental comparison of energy-consuming and carbon emissions permits trading in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Pal, Kalyani & Mukhopadhyay, Jyoti Prasad & Bhagawan, Praveen, 2024. "Does cap-and-trade scheme impact energy efficiency and firm value? Empirical evidence from India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    9. Zhang, Yanfang & Guo, Siyuan & Shi, Xunpeng & Qian, Xiangyan & Nie, Rui, 2021. "A market instrument to achieve carbon neutrality: Is China’s energy-consumption permit trading scheme effective?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    10. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    11. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    12. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    13. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    14. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    15. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.
    16. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    17. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    18. Wang, Ke & Yang, Kexin & Wei, Yi-Ming & Zhang, Chi, 2018. "Shadow prices of direct and overall carbon emissions in China’s construction industry: A parametric directional distance function-based sensitive estimation," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 180-193.
    19. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    20. Zhang, Chonghui & Bai, Chen & Su, Weihua & Balezentis, Tomas, 2024. "The centralised data envelopment analysis model integrated with cost information and utility theory for power price setting under carbon peak strategy at the firm-level," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 292(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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3570-:d:1071877. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.