| Literature DB >> 29027983 |
Tiancai Xing1, Qichuan Jiang2, Xuejiao Ma3.
Abstract
With the Paris Agreement coming into effect, China, as the largest CO₂ emitter in the world, will be facing greater pressure to reduce its carbon emissions. This paper discusses how to solve this issue from the perspective of financial development in China. Although many studies have analyzed its impact on carbon emissions, the conclusions are contradictory. A major criticism of the existing studies is the reasonability of the selection of appropriate indicators and panel estimation techniques. Almost all studies use only one or limited indicators to represent the financial development and ignore the cross-sectional dependence. To fulfil the gaps mentioned above, a financial development index system is built, and with the framework of the STIRPAT (Stochastic impacts by regression on population, affluence, and technology) model, this paper applies an ARDL approach to investigating the long-run relationship between financial development and carbon emissions and a dynamic panel error-corrected model to capture the short-run impact. The empirical results show that financial development can improve carbon emissions, and such impact not only shows a regional difference but also reflects the features of stage differences. Additionally, based on the discussion on seven specific aspects of financial development, our findings can be helpful for policy makers to enact corresponding policies to realize the goal of reducing carbon emissions in China.Entities:
Keywords: STIRPAT model; carbon emissions; dynamic panel data analysis; financial development; financial development index system; regional and stage analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29027983 PMCID: PMC5664723 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14101222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Carbon emissions of the main world economies in 2015.
Figure 2Energy structure of main economies in the world.
Contributions and policies of China related to the emissions reduction.
| Time | Name of Policy | Related Contents |
|---|---|---|
| January 2017 | The Comprehensive Working Plan for Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction during the 13th Five Year Plan | Assign total energy consumption and intensity goals for each province (city and district), propose goals for primary industries and clarify the control plan for CO2 total discharge levels in each region. |
| June 2016 | Regulations of Industrial Energy Conservation | Emphasize a transaction system of energy use rights, clarify the management methods for energy saving and build a healthy and sound supervision system. |
| September 2014 | Action Plan for Transformation and Updating of Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction of Coal (2014–2020) | Until 2020, the average coal consumption power supply of newly built coal-fired generating units should be lower than 300 g/kWh. Transformational active units should be lower than 310 g/kWh. |
| April 2014 | Revise Environmental Protection Act | Highlight the cyclical utilization of resources and environmental improvement and protection to coordinate social and economic development and environmental protection. |
| September 2013 | Action Plan for the Control of Air Pollution | Increase the selected ratio of raw coal to 70%. |
| July 2012 | Revise Cleaner Production Promotion Law | Promote cleaner production, improve the utilization efficiency of resources, reduce and prevent pollution, and protect the environment. |
| August 2011 | Comprehensive Working Plan for Energy Conservation and Emissions Reduction during the 12th Five Year Plan | Aim to decrease carbon emissions intensity by 17% in 2015 compared to 2010 within the national economy and social development plan of the 12th Five Year Plan. |
| April 2010 | Revise Renewable Energy Law | Enhance the development and utilization of renewable energy and promote the rapid and orderly development of renewable energy industries. |
| April 2008 | Energy Conservation Law | Promote energy conservation, improve the utilization efficiency of energy and promote comprehensive, harmonious and sustainable development. |
| March 2006 | The 11th Five Year Plan | Aim to decrease energy consumption by 20% |
| August 2002 | Kyoto Protocol | Aim to decrease carbon emissions by 40–45% by 2020 compared to 2005. |
Summary of STIRPAT model and factor decomposition analysis.
| Country | Year | Influencing Factors | Estimated Methods | Equation | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU-28 | 2000–2012 | Level of activity, electricity intensity, electricity trade, efficiency of electricity generation and fuel mix | LMDI-I method with the use of logarithmic mean weight functions |
| [ |
| United States | 2005–2025 | CO2 intensity of energy use, energy intensity of output, structural change, GPD per capita, population | Kaya identity | [ | |
| China | 2000–2012 | Energy structure, intensity, energy efficiency, economic development, population | Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) method |
| [ |
| China | 2001–2011 | Energy mix change, potential energy intensity change, economic activity, energy usage efficiency, energy saving technology change, GDP technical efficiency, GDP technology change | the multiplicative LMDI method |
| [ |
| China | 1990–2012 | Percentages of population employed in secondary and tertiary industries, percentage of the population living in urban areas, shares of the added value of secondary and tertiary industry to the GDP, rural-urban income gap, the cultivated land area occupied by construction | Fixed effects (FE), the feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) and the linear regression with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors (DK) |
| [ |
| China | 1995–2010 | Population, GDP per capita, tertiary industry value, secondary industry output value, FDI, energy consumption | Fixed effects (FE), linear regression with Newey-West standard errors (N-W), panel-corrected standard errors (PCSE), and Driscoll-Kraay standard errors (DK), feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) |
| [ |
| China | 1980–2010 | Total population, urbanization level, GDP per capita, technology, industrialization, service, foreign trade degree, energy consumption structure | Ridge regression with biased estimates |
| [ |
| China | 1990–2008 | GDP per capita, industrial structure, population, urbanization rate, technology level, energy consumption | Partial least squares (PLS) regression, linear regression | [ | |
| Morocco | 1971–2011 | GDP per capita, trade openness, electricity consumption per capita | Vector error correction mechanism (VECM) | [ | |
| China | 2000–2013 | GDP per capita, energy intensity, urbanization level | Semi-parametric | [ | |
| Croatia | 1992–2011 | GDP | Autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL), dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS), fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) | [ | |
| 164 countries | 1960–2011 | GDP per capita | Ordinary least squares (OLS) | [ | |
| Korea | 1978–2007 | Income, energy consumption, electricity production (thermal power, nuclear) | Autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL), ordinary least squares (OLS) | [ | |
| Southeast Asian Nations | 1997–2009 | Real income per capita, energy use per capita | Autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL), ordinary least squares (OLS) | [ | |
| South Africa | 1971–2010 | Energy use, GDP per capita | Autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL), ordinary least squares (OLS) | [ | |
Summary of studies of the relationship between financial development and carbon emissions.
| Time | Countries | Carbon Emissions | Financial Development | Method | Relationship | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1975–2011 | Indonesia | CO2 emission per capita | Real domestic credit to private sector per capita | Unit root/ARDL | Financial development condenses carbon emissions and inverted-U shaped relationship is confirmed between financial development and carbon emissions. | [ |
| 1975–2011 | UAE | CO2 emission per capita | Domestic credit to private sector | Unit root/Co-integration | Find an inverted U-shaped relationship between financial development and CO2 emissions. | [ |
| 1971–2011 | Malaysia | CO2 emission per capita | Real domestic credit to private sector per capita | ARDL/VECM | Financial development can play positive and significant role in combating environmental degradation in the country. | [ |
| 1953–2006 | China | CO2 emission per capita | Ratio of deposit liabilities to nominal GDP, ratio of credit to private sector to nominal GDP, ratio of commercial bank assets to the sum of commercial bank and central bank assets, foreign assets plus the foreign liabilities as a share of GDP | ARDL | Financial development has led to a decrease in environmental pollution. | [ |
| 1980–2012 | Gulf Cooperation Council Countries | CO2 emission per capita | Domestic credit available to the private sector as share of GDP | PVECM | Financial development was found to reduce CO2 emissions in the long-run; Financial development would continue to impact CO2 emissions little magnitude into the future. | [ |
| 1980–2008 | 19 countries | CO2 emission per capita | Broad money, domestic credit provided by banking sector, and the domestic credit to private sector | Granger causality test | CO2 emission affected the financial development based on the long run causal relationship and the positive short run causal relationship. | [ |
| 1980–2008 | Sub Saharan African countries | Carbon emissions | Broad money, the domestic credit to private sector | Granger causality test | CO2 emission had a long run impact and a positive causal relationship on the financial development. The financial development indicators had a positive causal relationship with the CO2 emission. | [ |
| 1985–2011 | 40 countries | Carbon emissions | Domestic credit to private sector | EKC/PVECM | Increases in financial development decrease carbon emissions. | [ |
| 1960–2007 | Turkey | CO2 emission per capita | Domestic credit to private sector | ARDL/Granger causality test/VEC | There is a long-run relationship between per capita carbon emissions and financial development. Financial development variable has no significant effect on per capita carbon emissions in the long run. | [ |
| 1971–2011 | Pakistan | CO2 emission per capita | Financial intermediation development: Total Credit, Private Sector Credit; Stock market development: Stock market capitalization, Stocks traded/turnover; Foreign direct Investment | ARDL//VECM | CO2 emission per capita is co-integrated with financial development; Financial development contributes to the increase of CO2 emission; FDI had a unidirectional causal relationship with emissions. | [ |
| 1960–2010 | Turkey | CO2 emission per capita | Real domestic credit to private sector per capita | Granger causality test | There is a unidirectional relationship between financial development and carbon emissions. | [ |
| 1971–2008 | India | Carbon emission | Domestic credit to private sector | ARDL/Granger causality test | Financial development has a long-run positive impact on carbon emissions. There is a long-run unidirectional causality running from financial development to carbon emissions and energy use. | [ |
| 1985–2005 | World | CO2 emission per capita | Financial openness | EKC/Quantile regression model | More financial openness does not appear to reduce the carbon emissions. | [ |
| 1965–2008 | South Africa | CO2 emission per capita | Real domestic credit to private sector per capita | Unit root/ARDL/ECM | Banking sector development that is per capita access to domestic credit of private sector help to achieve lower CO2 per capita emissions. | [ |
| 1994–2009 | China | Carbon emissions | Financial intermediation scale, financial intermediation efficiency, stock market scale, stock market efficiency, foreign direct investment | VAR/Granger causality test/VECM | The influence of financial intermediation scale is the largest with weaker efficiency’s influence. Stock market scale has relatively larger influence on carbon emissions with limited efficiency. FDI exerts the least influence on the change of carbon emissions. | [ |
| 1976–2009 | Vietnam | CO2 emission per capita | Real financial direct investment per capita | Co-integration/Granger causality test | The FDI is found to be negatively affecting CO2 emissions. | [ |
| 1989–2011 | 13 European/12 Asia and Oceania | Carbon emissions | The ratio of domestic credit to the private sector to GDP, and the stock traded turnover ratio | PVAR | CO2 shocks on both credit and stock markets are insignificant. | [ |
Summary of seven specific aspects of the financial development.
| Criteria Level | Factor Level | Measuring Level |
|---|---|---|
| FSZ | Financial asset | X1: Gross of banking assets, Security assets and Premium income |
| Financial institutions | X2: Number of insurance and Security institutions | |
| Financial professionals | X3: Total number of financial professionals | |
| FST | Financial industrial structure | X4: Banking assets/Financial assets |
| Internal structure of banking industry | X5: Deposit/Loan | |
| FOP | Capital flow liberalization | X6: FDI/Total investment in fixed assets |
| Localization of foreign financial service | X7: Gross of FDI in financial industry | |
| FDP | Finacialization | X8: Gross of deposit and loan of financial institutes/GDP |
| Financial depth rate | X9: Financial assets/GDP | |
| Foreign direct investment depth rate | X10: FDI/GDP | |
| FGR | Financial increasing | X11: Increasing speed of RMB deposit of financial institutions |
| X12: Increasing rate of RMB deposit of residents | ||
| Capital formation speed | X13: Gross capital formation/GDP | |
| Insurance density | X14: Premium per capita | |
| Insurance depth | X15: Premium income/GDP | |
| FEF | Macroscopic allocation efficiency | X16: Transform rate of saving to investment |
| X17: Capital formation rate | ||
| Saving rate | X18:Saving/Disposal personal income | |
| Marginal productivity of capital | X19: GDP growth/Total fixed asset investment | |
| FEC | Institutional environment | X20: Variety of distribution |
| Intermediary services | X21: Rate of patent authorization and pending | |
| Social credit system | X22: Individual credit |
Integrated weight of each indicator.
| Component | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 |
| Principal component method | 0.0411 | 0.0330 | 0.0383 | 0.0362 | 0.0503 | 0.033 | 0.0682 | 0.072 | 0.0285 | 0.0355 | 0.0221 |
| Entropy weight method | 0.0398 | 0.0243 | 0.0456 | 0.0458 | 0.0494 | 0.0366 | 0.0485 | 0.0486 | 0.0398 | 0.0545 | 0.0486 |
| Average | 0.0405 | 0.0286 | 0.0419 | 0.0410 | 0.0498 | 0.0348 | 0.0583 | 0.0603 | 0.0342 | 0.0450 | 0.0354 |
| Component | X12 | X13 | X14 | X15 | X16 | X17 | X18 | X19 | X20 | X21 | X22 |
| Principal component method | 0.0175 | 0.0321 | 0.0369 | 0.0691 | 0.0696 | 0.0653 | 0.0646 | 0.0245 | 0.0668 | 0.0268 | 0.0684 |
| Entropy weight method | 0.0444 | 0.0481 | 0.0470 | 0.0401 | 0.0485 | 0.0483 | 0.0493 | 0.0483 | 0.0497 | 0.0492 | 0.0457 |
| Average | 0.0309 | 0.0401 | 0.0419 | 0.0546 | 0.0590 | 0.0568 | 0.0569 | 0.0364 | 0.0582 | 0.0380 | 0.0570 |
List of other variables.
| Name | Variable Measure | Symbol | Expected Sign | Economic Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDP per capita | GDP/total population | GDPPC | +/− | The influence is uncertain. According to EKC, carbon emissions would increase first with the rise of GDP per capita and then show a declining trend after a certain threshold value is reached. |
| Industrial structure | Total industrial output value/GDP | IS | +/− | The process of industrialization includes technological advancement, which can redistribute the production factors and improve the production efficiency. However, in the early stages of industrialization, the carbon emissions will increase. |
Notes: (1) + indicates that the impact is positive; (2) − indicates that the impact is negative.
Figure 3Current situations of carbon emissions level.
Figure 4Financial development and cluster results of each province.
Results of overall impact of FD on CEL.
| Long-Run Coefficients | Short-Run Coefficients | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMG | CPMG | CDFE | CMG | CPMG | CDFE | |||
| GDPPC | 0.228 | 0.214 *** | 0.293 *** | GDPPC | −0.491 | 0.293 | 0.312 | |
| IS | −1.393 ** | 0.344 *** | 0.310 ** | IS | 0.219 * | 0.174 ** | −0.258 | |
| FD | −0.729 | 0.986 * | 0.291 *** | FD | 0.154 | −0.215 *** | 0.375 ** | |
| FD2 | 2.175 | 0.252 *** | −0.321 *** | FD2 | −0.352 | 0.719 | 0.907 | |
| Error correction | −0.286 * | −0.491 ** | −0.219 *** | Constant | 0.912 | 2.566 *** | 4.474 *** | |
| Number of obs | 390 | Hausman test | 1 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | ||||
| Number of groups | 30 | 2 | Prob ≥ 0.989 | |||||
| Log Likelihood | 881.343 | 3 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | |||||
Notes: (1) ***, **, and * denote a significance of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; (2) Hausman test 1, H0: The CPMG estimator is preferred than CMG estimator; (3) Hausman test 2, H0: The CDFE estimator is preferred than CPMG estimator; (4) Hausman test 3, H0: The CDFE estimator is preferred than CMG estimator.
Regions division of China.
| Region | Provinces |
|---|---|
| Eastern | Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, Guangdong and Hainan. |
| Middle | Shanxi, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei and Hunan. |
| Western | Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Xizang, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia and Xinjiang. |
| Northeastern | Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang. |
Results of impact in difference regions.
| Eastern Region | Middle Region | Western Region | Northeastern Region | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMG | CPMG | CDFE | CMG | CPMG | CDFE | CMG | CPMG | CDFE | CMG | CPMG | CDFE | |||
| Long-run coefficients | GDPPC | 0.347 * | 0.314 ** | 0.224 *** | 0.329 * | −0.131 | 0.326 ** | 0.318 ** | 0.205 *** | 0.342 *** | −0.279 *** | −0.273 ** | −0.125 *** | |
| IS | −0.358 ** | −0.208 * | −0.352 ** | 0.246 *** | −0.253 * | 0.510 | 0.353 ** | 0.411 | 0.261 *** | 0.622 ** | 0.832 * | 0.741 *** | ||
| FD | −0.335 * | 0.427 | −0.374 *** | 0.521 *** | −0.581 | 0.391 *** | 0.613 ** | 0.426 * | 0.461 *** | 0.633 * | 0.741 *** | 0.698 ** | ||
| FD2 | −0.348 ** | −0.359 ** | −0.258 *** | −0.762 *** | 0.164 * | −0.873 ** | −0.523 ** | −0.741 | −0.915 *** | −0.674 ** | −0.733 | −0.582 * | ||
| Error correction | 0.138 * | −0.427 *** | −0.416 *** | −0.301 ** | −0.315 ** | −0.251 *** | −0.379 | −0.291 ** | −0.313 *** | −0.304 ** | −0.135 *** | −0.421 *** | ||
| Short-run coefficients | GDPPC | 0.136 * | −0.142 | −0.115 * | −1.750 | −0.019 | −0.225 | 0.404 *** | −0.897 | 0.461 ** | 0.969 | −0.437 * | 0.234 * | |
| IS | 0.480 * | 0.179 ** | −0.261 ** | 0.220 ** | −0.251 * | 0.391 | −0.451 ** | 0.029 | −0.361 * | 0.372 | 0.401 ** | 0.235 ** | ||
| FD | −0.312 ** | −0.364 * | −0.334 ** | 0.254 *** | 0.829 | 0.913 | 0.542 *** | 0.490 | 0.516 ** | 0.039 | 0.910 | 0.429 * | ||
| FD2 | −0.231 * | −0.532 ** | −0.237 ** | −0.284 * | −0.841 | −0.418 | −0.031 | −0.158 ** | −0.917 * | −0.114 * | −0.994 | −0.151 * | ||
| Constant | −0.081 *** | 0.034 ** | 0.083 *** | 0.072 *** | 0.262 ** | 0.086 ** | 0.031 ** | −0.048 * | 0.071 *** | 0.619 *** | 0.381 ** | 0.212 *** | ||
| Number of obs | 130 | 78 | 143 | 39 | ||||||||||
| Number of groups | 10 | 6 | 11 | 3 | ||||||||||
| Hausman test | 1 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | |||||||||
| 2 | Prob ≥ 0.990 | Prob ≥ 0.991 | Prob ≥ 0.993 | Prob ≥ 0.998 | ||||||||||
| 3 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | ||||||||||
Notes: (1) ***, **, and * denote a significance of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; (2) Hausman test 1, H0: The CPMG estimator is preferred than CMG estimator; (3) Hausman test 2, H0: The CDFE estimator is preferred than CPMG estimator; (4) Hausman test 3, H0: The CDFE estimator is preferred than CMG estimator.
Results of FD on CEL in different stages.
| 10th Five-Year Plan | 11th Five-Year Plan | 12th Five-Year Plan | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMG | CPMG | CDFE | CMG | CPMG | CDFE | CMG | CPMG | CDFE | |||
| Long−run coefficients | GDPPC | 0.235 * | 0.248 ** | 0.253 *** | 0.258 ** | 0.241 *** | 0.292 *** | 0.150 ** | −0.112 *** | −0.142 *** | |
| IS | 0.624 ** | 0.427 *** | 0.720 ** | 0.449 *** | 0.316 * | 0.552 ** | 0.241 ** | 0.051 | 0.301 ** | ||
| FD | 0.793 *** | 0.774 ** | 0.816 *** | 0.5132 ** | 0.414 *** | 0.569 ** | 0.325 ** | 0.350 *** | 0.257 *** | ||
| FD2 | −0.418 ** | −0.162 | −0.298 ** | −0.172 | −0.203 | −0.283 | 0.682 | −0.541 | 0.823 | ||
| Error correction | −1.933 ** | −0.422 ** | −0.946 *** | −0.354 *** | −0.422 ** | −0.481 *** | −1.293 ** | −0.351 | −1.412 *** | ||
| Short−run coefficients | GDPPC | 0.301 | 0.461 | −0.439 *** | 0.719 | 0.193 ** | 0.415 | −0.214 * | 0.183 ** | −0.280 ** | |
| IS | 0.293 * | 0.923 | 0.142 * | 0.993 | 0.219 *** | 2.327 | −0.011 | −0.383 | −0.282 | ||
| FD | 0.192 * | 0.012 | 0.169 * | −0.264 | 0.335 | −0.243 ** | −1.001 | 0.383 | −0.342 * | ||
| FD2 | −0.213 | −0.258 * | −0.213 * | 0.232 * | −0.914 | 0.839 | 0.928 | −0.830 | 0939 | ||
| Constant | 0.021 * | 0.355 | −0.475 * | 0.439 | −0.244 ** | 0.214 ** | 0.312 | −1.883 *** | 1.251 ** | ||
| Number of obs | 120 | 120 | 90 | ||||||||
| Number of groups | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||
| Hausman test | 1 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | |||||||
| 2 | Prob ≥ 0.989 | Prob ≥ 0.993 | Prob ≥ 0.991 | ||||||||
| 3 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | Prob ≥ 1.000 | ||||||||
Notes: (1) ***, **, and * denote a significance of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; (2) Hausman test 1, H0: The CPMG estimator is preferred than CMG estimator; (3) Hausman test 2, H0: The CDFE estimator is preferred than CPMG estimator; (4) Hausman test 3, H0: The CDFE estimator is preferred than CMG estimator.
Results of each aspect of financial development on CEL.
| Aspect | FSZ | FST | FOP | FDP | FGR | FEF | FEC | Error Correction | Constant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall impact | 0.369 *** | −0.246 | 0.133 ** | 0.221 *** | −0.293 | −0.166 ** | −0.159 * | 0.382 *** | −0.224 *** |
| Eastern region | −0.496 *** | −0.410 | −0.284 ** | −0.142 ** | 0.492 | −0.398 *** | −0.451 *** | 0.528 *** | −0.308 *** |
| Middle region | 0.313 *** | 0.351 *** | 0.192 *** | 0.129 *** | 0.929 | 0.042 | 0.148 *** | 0.551 *** | −0.218 ** |
| Western region | 0.235 ** | −0.440 | 0.926 | 0.105 * | −0.241 ** | 0.282 | −0.195 ** | 0.345 *** | −0.209 ** |
| Northeastern region | 0.193 ** | 0.924 | 0.326 *** | 0.146 | −2.410 | 0.335 *** | −0.153 | 0.590 | −0.037 *** |
Notes: (1) ***, **, and * denote a significance of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Analysis of the impact of different aspects of financial development on carbon emissions.
| Region | Impact | Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide | + | 1. Energy-intensive enterprises with small investment risk and high revenues use the extensive product mode. |
| Eastern region | − | 1. The eastern region is a good location, and the financial size is in an early stage, so the costs of emission reduction are low. |
| Middle region | + | |
| Western region | + | |
| North-eastern region | + | |
| Nationwide | + | 1. The entry barrier for FDI in China is too low to ensure investment quality. The attraction for FDI is not sufficient, and the pursuit of FDI is blind. |
| Eastern region | − | 1. The eastern region can attract good foreign investment with high technology. |
| Middle region | + | |
| Western region | / | |
| North-eastern region | + | |
| Nationwide | + | 1. The resources of financial credit agencies are directed to departments with high energy consumption. |
| Eastern region | − | 1. The technological advantage of the eastern region is obvious, and technology spill-over can offset the pollution. |
| Middle region | + | |
| Western region | + | |
| North-eastern region | + | |
| Nationwide | − | 1. Transformation rate of savings and deposits of financial institutions is high, and more financing can help change the product technology. |
| Eastern region | − | 1. The eastern region has an obvious technological advantage with a high transformation rate of capital use. The situation in the north-eastern region is the opposite. |
| Middle region | / | |
| Western region | / | |
| North-eastern region | + | |
| Nationwide | − | 1. Technological innovation decreases carbon emissions. |
| Eastern region | − | 1. Insufficient control of technology innovation in the north-eastern region. |
| Middle region | − | |
| Western region | − | |
| North-eastern region | / | |
Notes: (1) + indicates that the impact is positive; (2) − indicates that the impact is negative.
Figure 5Summary of the research results.
Cross-sectional dependence test.
| Variable | CD-Test | Abs(corr) | Variable | CD-Test | Abs(corr) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEPC | 63.520 | 0.000 | 0.890 | FST | 52.350 | 0.000 | 0.775 |
| GDPPC | 75.430 | 0.000 | 0.976 | FOP | 53.880 | 0.000 | 0.719 |
| IS | 32.630 | 0.000 | 0.628 | FDP | 37.660 | 0.000 | 0.533 |
| FD | 53.970 | 0.000 | 0.692 | FGR | 48.700 | 0.000 | 0.626 |
| FD2 | 48.400 | 0.000 | 0.627 | FEF | 38.170 | 0.000 | 0.515 |
| FSZ | 75.040 | 0.000 | 0.962 | FEC | 22.210 | 0.000 | 0.361 |
Results of panel unit roots tests.
| Variables in Levels | Variables in First Differences | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant w/o Trend | Constant w/Trend | Constant w/o Trend | Constant w/Trend | |||||||||
| No. lag | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| CEPC | 0.796 | 0.883 | 0.891 | 0.996 | 0.994 | 0.998 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| GDPPC | 0.574 | 0.629 | 0.735 | 0.965 | 0.978 | 0.993 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| IS | 0.072 | 0.139 | 0.168 | 0.471 | 0.669 | 0.705 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FD | 0.905 | 0.945 | 0.911 | 0.920 | 0.946 | 0.998 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FD2 | 0.918 | 0.936 | 0.900 | 0.972 | 0.963 | 0.977 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FSZ | 0.624 | 0.958 | 0.972 | 0.982 | 0.987 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FST | 0.946 | 0.998 | 0.999 | 0.703 | 0.996 | 0.999 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FOP | 0.874 | 0.889 | 0.903 | 0.641 | 0.993 | 0.817 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FDP | 0.318 | 0.856 | 0.774 | 0.621 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FGR | 0.568 | 0.626 | 0.888 | 0.825 | 0.945 | 0.991 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FEF | 0.838 | 0.851 | 0.998 | 0.617 | 1.000 | 0.995 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FEC | 0.302 | 0.492 | 0.517 | 0.806 | 0.885 | 0.793 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Results of panel cointegration tests.
| CEPC | GDPPC | IS | FD | FD2 | FSZ | FST | FOP | FDP | FGR | FEF | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gt | 0.428 | 1.955 | 6.242 | 3.471 | 0.601 | 2.309 | 0.631 | 5.404 | 6.140 | 5.883 | 1.208 |
| Ga | −3.716 | −5.510 | −2.657 | −6.692 | −5.091 | −5.468 | −5.667 | −3.399 | −2.307 | −3.681 | −5.379 |
| Pt | 0.815 | −0.009 | 4.420 | 1.874 | −0.776 | −1.734 | −2.589 | 1.628 | 4.616 | 3.517 | 0.676 |
| Pa | −3.969 | −5.407 | −0.357 | −3.214 | −4.499 | −7.197 | −6.945 | −2.991 | −0.256 | −2.805 | −4.555 |