IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/21-wp619.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of China's Place-based Environmental Regulations on its Hog Industry: A Synthetic Difference-in-differences Approach

Author

Abstract

Agricultural water pollution from the livestock industry is a growing concern in China and globally. As opposed to size-based regulations targeting larger facilities in the United States, China's regulations are place-based in nature. In 2014, China classified eight urban provinces in the southeast as a Development Control Zone (DCZ), which prohibits new hog facilities construction and encourages hog farms to relocate to other regions. Leveraging a novel identification strategy, synthetic difference-indifferences, and the place-based nature of China's environmental regulations, we provide one of the first systematic analyses of the impacts of the regulations on county-level hog and sow inventories. By relying on synthetic controls constructed with both county and year weights, synthetic difference-in-differences yields a more accurate and doubly robust estimate of regulations' treatment effects. Our results show that, on average, the regulations led to an 11.3% reduction in hog inventories after the environmental regulations in the counties in DCZ provinces, mainly resulting from extensive margin changes due to the closures of existing hog farms. This is equivalent to a loss of over 15 million head of pigs or over U.S. $4.4 billion reduction in the DCZ hog sectoral revenue. We also find the treatment effects vary substantially both within and across DCZ provinces: wealthier urban provinces such as Zhejiang experienced reduction in hog and sow inventories of over 50%; and counties upstream of big cities or those designated as main hog counties saw steeper declines as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Nieyan Cheng & Wendong Zhang & Tao Xiong, 2022. "The Impact of China's Place-based Environmental Regulations on its Hog Industry: A Synthetic Difference-in-differences Approach," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp619, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:21-wp619
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/21wp619.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1326
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Briant & Miren Lafourcade & Benoît Schmutz, 2015. "Can Tax Breaks Beat Geography? Lessons from the French Enterprise Zone Experience," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 88-124, May.
    2. Timothy J. Bartik, 2020. "Using Place-Based Jobs Policies to Help Distressed Communities," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 99-127, Summer.
    3. Zabel, Jeffrey E. & Guignet, Dennis, 2012. "A hedonic analysis of the impact of LUST sites on house prices," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 549-564.
    4. Teevrat Garg & Ajay Shenoy, 2021. "The Ecological Impact of Place‐Based Economic Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1239-1250, August.
    5. Wu, Mingqin & Cao, Xun, 2021. "Greening the career incentive structure for local officials in China: Does less pollution increase the chances of promotion for Chinese local leaders?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Xi He & Edward J. Balistreri & Gyu Hyun Kim & Wendong Zhang, 2022. "A general equilibrium assessment of COVID-19's labor productivity impacts on china's regional economies," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 129-150, December.
    7. Cai, Hongbin & Chen, Yuyu & Gong, Qing, 2016. "Polluting thy neighbor: Unintended consequences of China׳s pollution reduction mandates," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 86-104.
    8. Ariella Kahn-Lang & Kevin Lang, 2020. "The Promise and Pitfalls of Differences-in-Differences: Reflections on 16 and Pregnant and Other Applications," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 613-620, July.
    9. Ji, Chen & Chen, Shuai & Jin, Songqing, 2018. "Impact Evaluation of “Regulation on water pollution from livestock and poultry production” -- the case of livestock sector in China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273863, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Miguel Carriquiry & Amani Elobeid & David A. Swenson & Dermot J. Hayes, 2020. "Impacts of African Swine Fever in Iowa and the United States," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 20-wp600, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    11. Gary Solon & Steven J. Haider & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "What Are We Weighting For?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 301-316.
    12. Stacy Sneeringer, 2010. "A National, Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Concentrated Hog Production on Ambient Air Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 821-835.
    13. Matthew E. Kahn & Pei Li & Daxuan Zhao, 2015. "Water Pollution Progress at Borders: The Role of Changes in China's Political Promotion Incentives," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 223-242, November.
    14. Azzeddine Azzam & Gibson Nene & Karina Schoengold, 2015. "Hog Industry Structure and the Stringency of Environmental Regulation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(3), pages 333-358, September.
    15. Wang, Chunhua & Wu, JunJie & Zhang, Bing, 2018. "Environmental regulation, emissions and productivity: Evidence from Chinese COD-emitting manufacturers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 54-73.
    16. Minghao Li & Tao Xiong & Yongjie Ji & Dermot J. Hayes & Wendong Zhang, 2019. "African Swine Fever in China: An Update," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications apr-winter-2019-2, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    17. Chad Lawley, 2021. "Hog Barns and Neighboring House Prices: Anticipation and Post‐Establishment Impacts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1099-1121, May.
    18. Peter M. Aronow & Cyrus Samii, 2016. "Does Regression Produce Representative Estimates of Causal Effects?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 250-267, January.
    19. Chen-Ti Chen & Tao Xiong & Wendong Zhang, 2020. "Large Hog Companies Gain from China's Ongoing African Swine Fever," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications apr-spring-2020-5, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    20. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    21. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01156460 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Shiyu Bo, 2021. "Environmental Regulations, Political Incentives and Local Economic Activities: Evidence from China," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 812-835, June.
    2. Ying She & Yaobin Liu & Yangu Deng & Lei Jiang, 2020. "Can China’s Government-Oriented Environmental Regulation Reduce Water Pollution? Evidence from Water Pollution Intensive Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Xu Ou & Haiwei Jiang, 2023. "The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Firm Performance: Evidence from the Pulp and Paper Industry in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Bhalotra, Sonia R. & Clarke, Damian & Gomes, Joseph & Venkataramani, Atheendar, 2018. "Maternal Mortality and Women's Political Participation," IZA Discussion Papers 11590, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Xiaoshu Xu & Yingying Cheng & Xuechen Meng, 2022. "River Chief System, Emission Abatement, and Firms’ Profits: Evidence from China’s Polluting Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Wu, Mingqin & Cao, Xun, 2021. "Greening the career incentive structure for local officials in China: Does less pollution increase the chances of promotion for Chinese local leaders?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Chen, Gao & Xu, Jian & Qi, Yu, 2022. "Environmental (de)centralization and local environmental governance: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Kong, Dongmin & Liu, Chenhao, 2024. "Centralization and regulatory enforcement: Evidence from personnel authority reform in China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    9. Manon Garrouste & Miren Lafourcade, 2022. "Place-Based Policies: Opportunity for Deprived Schools or Zone-and-Shame Effect?," Post-Print hal-04329793, HAL.
    10. Tymon Słoczyński, 2022. "Interpreting OLS Estimands When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous: Smaller Groups Get Larger Weights," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(3), pages 501-509, May.
    11. Sergei Guriev & Elias Papaioannou, 2022. "The Political Economy of Populism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 753-832, September.
    12. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2018. "A General Weighted Average Representation of the Ordinary and Two-Stage Least Squares Estimands," IZA Discussion Papers 11866, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Yuping Deng & Yanrui Wu & Helian Xu, 2022. "Emission Reduction and Value-added Export Nexus at Firm Level," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 22-19, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    14. Brett Theodos & Christina Stacy & Daniel Teles & Chris Davis & Ananya Hariharan, 2022. "Place‐based investment and neighborhood change: The impacts of New Markets Tax Credits on jobs, poverty, and neighborhood composition," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 1092-1121, September.
    15. Shuai Chen & Faqin Lin & Xi Yao & Peng Zhang, 2020. "WTO accession, trade expansion, and air pollution: Evidence from China’s county‐level panel data," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1020-1045, September.
    16. Guanyi Yu & Chunliang Xiu & Changsong Zhao & Zhengliang Ding, 2018. "Strategic Cross-Border Water Pollution in Songliao Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Chen, Jidong & Shi, Xinzheng & Zhang, Ming-ang & Zhang, Sihan, 2024. "Centralization of environmental administration and air pollution: Evidence from China," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    18. Eli Ben‐Michael & Avi Feller & Jesse Rothstein, 2022. "Synthetic controls with staggered adoption," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(2), pages 351-381, April.
    19. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2022. "Design-based analysis in Difference-In-Differences settings with staggered adoption," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 62-79.
    20. Jason M. Lindo & Analisa Packham, 2017. "How Much Can Expanding Access to Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives Reduce Teen Birth Rates?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 348-376, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ias:cpaper:21-wp619. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.html .

    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.