IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i20p5602-d275455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Regulation and China’s Regional Innovation Output—Empirical Research Based on Spatial Durbin Model

Author

Listed:
  • Yun Li

    (Institute of Finance, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
    Chengdu Municipal Xindu District People’s Government of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 510100, China)

  • Yingkai Tang

    (Institute of Finance, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
    Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Kun Wang

    (Institute of Finance, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
    Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Qiwei Zhao

    (Institute of Finance, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
    Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

Abstract

The sustainable development and innovation-driven development system has always been a guiding ideology for the Chinese government. Therefore, research on China’s environmental regulation and regional innovation output is of great significance. Based on the provincial data of China from 2006 to 2016, this study uses many spatial econometric methods with the spatial Durbin model. We empirically analyze the relationship between environmental regulation and regional innovation output. The results show that (1) China’s regional innovation output has significant spatial cluster and differentiation. Concerning the whole country, environmental regulation has a significant negative effect on regional innovation output, but its own spatial cluster phenomenon is not significant, and there is no space spillover. (2) There are differences between environmental regulation and regional innovation output in the eastern, central and western regions, in which the negative correlation between environmental regulation in the eastern region on regional innovation output has spillover effects in the region, and the direct effect in the central region is not significant, while the results in the western region are not significantly different from the full sample results. Finally, based on the research conclusions, we apply some policy recommendations from the perspectives of diversity of environmental policy, corporate innovation incentives, government officials’ assessment, local government policy autonomy and sustainable development concept.

Suggested Citation

  • Yun Li & Yingkai Tang & Kun Wang & Qiwei Zhao, 2019. "Environmental Regulation and China’s Regional Innovation Output—Empirical Research Based on Spatial Durbin Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5602-:d:275455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5602/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5602/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cole, Matthew A. & Elliott, Robert J.R. & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2010. "Trade, environmental regulations and industrial mobility: An industry-level study of Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1995-2002, August.
    2. Neal D. Woods, 2006. "Interstate Competition and Environmental Regulation: A Test of the Race‐to‐the‐Bottom Thesis," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(1), pages 174-189, March.
    3. Rubashkina, Yana & Galeotti, Marzio & Verdolini, Elena, 2015. "Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 288-300.
    4. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    5. T. S. Breusch & A. R. Pagan, 1980. "The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 239-253.
    6. Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 1998. "Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing, and Technology Choice," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 235-256, June.
    7. Popp, David & Newell, Richard, 2012. "Where does energy R&D come from? Examining crowding out from energy R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 980-991.
    8. Maoliang Bu & Zhibiao Liu & Marcus Wagner & Xiaohua Yu, 2013. "Corporate social responsibility and the pollution haven hypothesis: evidence from multinationals' investment decision in China," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 85-99, March.
    9. Zhao, S.L. & Cacciolatti, L. & Lee, S.H. & Song, W., 2015. "Regional collaborations and indigenous innovation capabilities in China: A multivariate method for the analysis of regional innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 202-220.
    10. J. Paul Elhorst, 2014. "Matlab Software for Spatial Panels," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 37(3), pages 389-405, July.
    11. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:235-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Cole, Matthew A. & Elliott, Robert J. R., 2003. "Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 363-383, November.
    13. Selden Thomas M. & Song Daqing, 1995. "Neoclassical Growth, the J Curve for Abatement, and the Inverted U Curve for Pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 162-168, September.
    14. Simpson, R. David & Bradford, Robert III, 1996. "Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 282-300, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yi Li & Lili Ding & Yongliang Yang, 2020. "Can the Introduction of an Environmental Target Assessment Policy Improve the TFP of Textile Enterprises? A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on the Huai River Basin in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Pingping Dai & Yuanyuan Lin, 2021. "Should There Be Industrial Agglomeration in Sustainable Cities?: A Perspective Based on Haze Pollution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.

    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. Rubashkina, Yana & Galeotti, Marzio & Verdolini, Elena, 2015. "Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 288-300.
    2. Andong Liu & Xuesong Gu, 2020. "Environmental Regulation, Technological Progress and Corporate Profit: Empirical Research Based on the Threshold Panel Regression," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Misato Sato, 2017. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 183-206.
    4. Guichuan Zhou & Wendi Liu & Liming Zhang & Kaiwen She, 2019. "Can Environmental Regulation Flexibility Explain the Porter Hypothesis?—An Empirical Study Based on the Data of China’s Listed Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Lei Ding & Xuejuan Fang, 2022. "Spatial–temporal distribution of air-pollution-intensive industries and its social-economic driving mechanism in Zhejiang Province, China: a framework of spatial econometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1681-1712, February.
    6. Zhangsheng Liu & Liuqingqing Yang & Liqin Fan, 2021. "Induced Effect of Environmental Regulation on Green Innovation: Evidence from the Increasing-Block Pricing Scheme," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Fozia Latif Gill & K Kuperan Viswanathan & Mohd Zaini Abdul Karim, 2018. "The Critical Review of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH)," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(1), pages 167-174.
    8. Sen, Suphi, 2015. "Corporate governance, environmental regulations, and technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 36-61.
    9. Thanh Tam Nguyen-Huu & Khac Minh Nguyen & Quoc Tran-Nam, 2022. "The role of environmental practices and innovation in total factor productivity convergence -Evidence from small-and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam," Post-Print hal-04248191, HAL.
    10. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    11. Zhuanlan Sun & Demi Zhu, 2023. "Investigating environmental regulation effects on technological innovation: A meta-regression analysis," Energy & Environment, , vol. 34(3), pages 463-492, May.
    12. Anabel Zárate-Marco & Jaime Vallés-Giménez, 2015. "Environmental tax and productivity in a decentralized context: new findings on the Porter hypothesis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-339, October.
    13. Sascha Rexhäuser & Christian Rammer, 2014. "Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability: Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 145-167, January.
    14. Chiara Franco & Giovanni Marin, 2017. "The Effect of Within-Sector, Upstream and Downstream Environmental Taxes on Innovation and Productivity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(2), pages 261-291, February.
    15. Chakraborty, Pavel & Chatterjee, Chirantan, 2017. "Does environmental regulation indirectly induce upstream innovation? New evidence from India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 939-955.
    16. Xuesong Gu & Xiaoran An & Andong Liu, 2022. "Environmental Regulation, Corporate Economic Performance and Spatial Technology Spillover: Evidence from China’s Heavily Polluting Listed Corporations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-24, January.
    17. Stucki, Tobias & Woerter, Martin & Arvanitis, Spyros & Peneder, Michael & Rammer, Christian, 2018. "How different policy instruments affect green product innovation: A differentiated perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 245-261.
    18. Felix Groba & Barbara Breitschopf, 2013. "Impact of Renewable Energy Policy and Use on Innovation: A Literature Review," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1318, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Yu-Hong Ai & Di-Yun Peng & Huan-Huan Xiong, 2021. "Impact of Environmental Regulation Intensity on Green Technology Innovation: From the Perspective of Political and Business Connections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-23, April.
    20. Jintao Zhang & Zhen Yang & Li Meng & Lu Han, 2022. "Environmental regulations and enterprises innovation performance: the role of R&D investments and political connections," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4088-4109, March.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5602-:d:275455. 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.