Abstract
The carbon emission rights trading pilot (CERTP) policy is an important measure to promote low-carbon economic development. This pilot policy also affects the entry and survival of enterprises and is thus related to local government fiscal pressure. The objective of this paper is to examine whether the CERTP policy increases local government fiscal pressure. Based on the quasi-natural experiment of China’s CERTP policy, using a dataset from 314 prefecture-level cities in China over the period 2005 to 2019, this paper applies the staggered difference-in-differences (DID) model to examine the impact of the CERTP policy on local government fiscal pressure, and further tests the spatial spillover effects and potential mediation mechanisms of this pilot policy. The results indicate that the implementation of the CERTP policy significantly increases local government fiscal pressure, especially in the eastern regions and regions with low economic development levels, which provides further evidence of a causal relationship between the CERTP policy and fiscal pressure. The results of the spatial spillover effects confirm that the implementation of the CERTP policy in neighboring prefecture-level cities would increase local government fiscal pressure in the local region. The results of the mediation mechanism effect reveal that the CERTP policy aggravates local government fiscal pressure by inhibiting the progress of green technology by enterprises, hindering the emergence of new enterprises, and increasing the number of closures of high-carbon emissions enterprises. This paper recommends that when implementing the CERTP policy, it is necessary to weigh the overall impact of the policy, not just its effect on carbon emissions reduction. The fiscal sustainability of local governments cannot be ignored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used in this study are available from the corresponding authors according to reasonable needs.
References
An Y, Zhou D, Yu J, Shi X, Wang Q (2021) Carbon emission reduction characteristics for China’s manufacturing firms: implications for formulating carbon policies. J Environ Manag 284:112055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112055
Angrist JD, Pischke JS (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, USA, New Jersey
Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models, vol 4. Springer Science and Business Media Press, Germany, Berlin
Anselin L, Rey S (1991) Properties of tests for spatial dependence in linear regression models. Geogr Anal 23(2):112–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1991.tb00228.x
Appiah MO (2018) Investigating the multivariate Granger causality between energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Ghana. Energy Policy 112:198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.017
Athey S, Imbens GW (2022) Design-based analysis in difference-in-differences settings with staggered adoption. J Econom 226(1):62–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.10.012
Baker AC, Larcker DF, Wang CC (2022) How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates? J Financ Econ 144(2):370–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.01.004
Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182
Beck T, Levine R, Levkov A (2010) Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States. J Financ 65(5):1637–1667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01589.x
Beerli A, Ruffner J, Siegenthaler M, Peri G (2021) The abolition of immigration restrictions and the performance of firms and workers: evidence from Switzerland. Am Econ Rev 111(3):976–1012. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181779
Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Q J Econ 119(1):249–275. https://doi.org/10.1162/0033553047728395-88
Bonhomme S, Sauder U (2011) Recovering distributions in difference-in-differences models: a comparison of selective and comprehensive schooling. Rev Econ Statistics 93(2):479–494. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00164
Boyd D, Dadayan L (2016) Slow tax revenue growth, rising pension contributions, and Medicaid growth lead state and local governments to reshape their finances. Proceedings. Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association 109:1–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/-26816569. Accessed 10 Aug 2022
Callaway B, Sant’Anna PH (2021) Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. J Econom 225(2):200–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001
Chagas AL, Azzoni CR, Almeida AN (2016) A spatial difference-in-differences analysis of the impact of sugarcane production on respiratory diseases. Reg Sci Urban Econ 59:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2016.04.002
Chen Z, Song P, Wang B (2021) Carbon emissions trading scheme, energy efficiency and rebound effect—evidence from China’s provincial data. Energy Policy 157:112507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.-2021.112507
Chen Z, Zhang X, Chen F (2021) Do carbon emission trading schemes stimulate green innovation in enterprises? Evidence from China. Technol Forecast Soc Change 168:120744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120744
Clarke D (2017) Estimating difference-in-differences in the presence of spillovers (MPRA Paper No. 81604). Bavaria: University Library of Munich, Germany
De Chaisemartin C, D’Haultfoeuille X (2020) Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects. Am Econ Rev 110(9):2964–2996. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181169
De Chaisemartin C, D'Haultfoeuille X (2022) Two-way fixed effects and differences-in-differences with heterogeneous treatment effects: a survey (Working Paper No. w29691). National Bureau of Economic Research, USA
Deng Z, Li D, Pang T, Duan M (2018) Effectiveness of pilot carbon emissions trading systems in China. Climate Policy 18(8):992–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1438245
Dong F, Dai Y, Zhang S, Zhang X, Long R (2019) Can a carbon emission trading scheme generate the Porter effect? Evidence from pilot areas in China. Sci Total Environ 653:565–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.395
Du G, Yu M, Sun C, Han Z (2021) Green innovation effect of emission trading policy on pilot areas and neighboring areas: an analysis based on the spatial econometric model. Energy Policy 156:112431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112431
Edgerton J, Haughwout AF, Rosen R (2004) Institutions, tax structure and state-local fiscal stress. Natl Tax J 57(1):147–158. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2004.1.08
Elhorst JP (2014) Spatial econometrics from cross-sectional data to spatial panels. Springer Press, Germany, Heidelberg
Gao Y, Li M, Xue J, Liu Y (2020) Evaluation of effectiveness of China’s carbon emissions trading scheme in carbon mitigation. Energy Econ 90:104872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104872
Gilmore EA, Kousky C, St Clair T (2022) Climate change will increase local government fiscal stress in the United States. Nat Clim Chang 12(3):216–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01311-x
Glasberg DS (1988) The political economic power of finance capital and urban fiscal crisis: Cleveland’s default, 1978. J Urban Aff 10(3):219–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.1988.tb00540.x
Gold SD (ed) (1995). Georgetown University Press, USA
Goodman-Bacon A (2021) Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. J Econom 225(2):254–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014
Guo YM, Shi YR (2021) Impact of the VAT reduction policy on local fiscal pressure in China in light of the COVID-19 pandemic: a measurement based on a computable general equilibrium model. Econ Anal Policy 69:253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.12.010
Hong Q, Cui L, Hong P (2022) The impact of carbon emissions trading on energy efficiency: evidence from quasi-experiment in China’s carbon emissions trading pilot. Energy Econ 110:106025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106025
Hu J, Pan X, Huang Q (2020a) Quantity or quality? The impacts of environmental regulation on firms’ innovation—quasi-natural experiment based on China’s carbon emissions trading pilot. Technol Forecast Soc Change 158:120122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120122
Hu Y, Ren S, Wang Y, Chen X (2020b) Can carbon emission trading scheme achieve energy conservation and emission reduction? Evidence from the industrial sector in China. Energy Econ 85:104590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104590
Jiang T (2022) Mediating and moderating effects in empirical research on causal inference. China Ind Econ 5:100–120. https://doi.org/10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.2022.05.005
Kolak M, Anselin L (2020) A spatial perspective on the econometrics of program evaluation. Int Reg Sci Rev 43(1–2):128–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/01600176198697
Kong D, Qin N (2021) Does environmental regulation shape entrepreneurship? Environ Resource Econ 80(1):169–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00584-8
Larcker DF, Rusticus TO (2010) On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. J Account Econ 49(3):186–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.11.004
LeSage J, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/ CRC Press, New York
Lin B, Jia Z (2019) Impacts of carbon price level in carbon emission trading market. Appl Energy 239:157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.194
Liu W (2019) Enterprise-Registration-Data-of-Chinese Mainland [EB/OL]. https://github.com/imhuste-r/Enter-prise-Registration-Data-of-Chinese-Mainland. Accessed 15 July 2020
Ma Q, Yan G, Ren X, Ren X (2022) Can China’s carbon emissions trading scheme achieve a double dividend? Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:50238–50255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19453-y
Moran PA (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37(1/2):17–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/-2332142
Ouyang X, Li Q, Du K (2020) How does environmental regulation promote technological innovations in the industrial sector? Evidence from Chinese provincial panel data. Energy Policy 139:111310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111310
Pan X, Pu C, Yuan S, Xu H (2022) Effect of Chinese pilots carbon emission trading scheme on enterprises’ total factor productivity: the moderating role of government participation and carbon trading market efficiency. J Environ Manag 316:115228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115228
Ren H, Gu G, Zhou H (2022) Assessing the low-carbon city pilot policy on carbon emission from consumption and production in China: how underlying mechanism and spatial spillover effect? Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:71958–71977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21005-3
Rubin D (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatment in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66:688–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350
Shamsub H, Akoto JB (2004) State and local fiscal structures and fiscal stress. J Public Budg Account Financ Manag 16(1):40–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-16-01-2004-B003
Shi B, Li N, Gao Q, Li G (2022) Market incentives, carbon quota allocation and carbon emission reduction: evidence from China’s carbon trading pilot policy. J Environ Manag 319:115650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115650
Shi L, Varuzzo AM (2020) Surging seas, rising fiscal stress: exploring municipal fiscal vulnerability to climate change. Cities 100:102658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102658
Skidmore M, Scorsone E (2011) Causes and consequences of fiscal pressure in Michigan cities. Reg Sci Urban Econ 41(4):360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.02.007
Tan X, Liu Y, Dong H, Zhang Z (2022) The effect of carbon emission trading scheme on energy efficiency: evidence from China. Econ Anal Policy 75:506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.06.012
Tang K, Zhou Y, Liang X, Zhou D (2021) The effectiveness and heterogeneity of carbon emissions trading scheme in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(14):17306–17318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12182-0
Tang L, Wu J, Yu L, Bao Q (2015) Carbon emissions trading scheme exploration in China: A multi-agent-based model. Energy Policy 81:152–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.032
Wang H, Wei W (2020) Coordinating technological progress and environmental regulation in CO2 mitigation: the optimal levels for OECD countries and emerging economies. Energy Econ 87:104510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104510
Wang Q, Gao C, Dai S (2019) Effect of the emissions trading scheme on CO2 abatement in China. Sustainability 11(4):1055. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041055
Wang X, Teng F, Wang G, Zhou S, Cai B (2018) Carbon leakage scrutiny in ETS and non-ETS industrial sectors in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:424–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.017
Wu Q, Wang Y (2022) How does carbon emission price stimulate enterprises’ total factor productivity? Insights from China’s emission trading scheme pilots. Energy Econ 109:105990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105990
Wu Q, Tambunlertchai K, Pornchaiwiseskul P (2021) Examining the impact and influencing channels of carbon emission trading pilot markets in China. Sustainability 13(10):5664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105664
Xiao J, Li G, Zhu B, Xie L, Hu Y, Huang J (2021) Evaluating the impact of carbon emissions trading scheme on Chinese firms’ total factor productivity. J Clean Prod 306:127104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127104
Yan Y, Liu T, Wang N, Yao S (2022) Urban sprawl and fiscal stress: evidence from urbanizing China. Cities 126:103699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103699
Yang X, Tang W (2022) Climate change and regional inequality: the effect of high temperatures on fiscal stress. Urban Climate 43:101167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101167
Yang Y, Peng C (2022) Low-carbon city pilot policy, fiscal pressure and carbon productivity: evidence from China. Front Environ Sci 10:978076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.978076
Zhang H, Duan M (2020) China’s pilot emissions trading schemes and competitiveness: an empirical analysis of the provincial industrial sub-sectors. J Environ Manag 258:109997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109997
Zhang H, Duan M, Deng Z (2019a) Have China’s pilot emissions trading schemes promoted carbon emission reductions?—the evidence from industrial sub-sectors at the provincial level. J Clean Prod 234:912–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.247
Zhang W, Zhang N, Yu Y (2019b) Carbon mitigation effects and potential cost savings from carbon emissions trading in China’s regional industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 141:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.014
Zhang W, Li J, Li G, Guo S (2020) Emission reduction effect and carbon market efficiency of carbon emissions trading policy in China. Energy 196:117117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117117
Zhou B, Zhang C, Song H, Wang Q (2019) How does emission trading reduce China’s carbon intensity? An exploration using a decomposition and difference-in-differences approach. Sci Total Environ 676:514–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.303
Zhou B, Zhang C, Wang Q, Zhou D (2020) Does emission trading lead to carbon leakage in China? Direction and channel identifications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 132:110090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110090
Zhou F, Wang X (2022) The carbon emissions trading scheme and green technology innovation in China: a new structural economics perspective. Econ Anal Policy 74:365–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.03.007
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor for their professional and friendly service, and also thank the reviewers for their impartial comments and constructive suggestions in this paper.
Funding
This research was supported by the Scientific Research Program of Tianjin Municipal Education Commission in 2022 (grant no. 2022SK034).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
(1) Yun Yang: conceptualization, methodology, writing — original draft, and funding acquisition. (2) Feng Hao: writing — review, editing, and proofreading. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Nicholas Apergis
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, Y., Hao, F. Does the carbon emission rights trading pilot policy aggravate local government fiscal pressure? Evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 65217–65236 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26914-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26914-5