| Literature DB >> 35206333 |
Yiping Sun1, Xiangyi Li2, Tengyuan Zhang3, Jiawei Fu3.
Abstract
Although the relationship between trade and environment has been widely discussed in past studies, trade policy has been in a state of continuous change in recent years. Previous studies have focused on the impact of trade opening or liberalization on the environment, ignoring discussion of the dynamic changes of trade policy. Therefore, it is very important to explore the connection between trade policy changes and environmental pollution for future environmental protection. In order to realize the in-depth study of this mechanism, the paper will try to solve the following three problems: (1) What is the relationship between change in trade policy uncertainty and China's environmental pollution? (2) What is the mechanism by which trade uncertainty changes environmental pollution? (3) Due to China's vast territory and regional differences, will changes in trade policy uncertainty have heterogeneous effects due to regional differences? To solve these problems, based on China's accession to the WTO at the end of 2001, this paper, for the first time, uses PM2.5 concentration data of 246 prefecture-level cities in China to explore the impact of trade policy uncertainty on China's environmental pollution, then we make an in-depth analysis of the impact path and heterogeneity of urban spatial distribution and city size. We found that, after China's accession to the WTO, the growth rate of PM2.5 concentration reduced in cities with lower trade policy uncertainty and the inhibition effect was different due to the spatial distribution of city size. A further mechanism test shows that reduction in trade policy uncertainty can improve environmental pollution through industrial, structural and technological effects.Entities:
Keywords: China; air pollution; regional PM2.5 concentration; trade policy uncertainty
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206333 PMCID: PMC8872143 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Variation trend of PM2.5 concentration in each province. Note: Data come from the China City Statistical Yearbook.
Figure 2Change trend of PM2.5 concentration after grouping.
Data and statistical description of variables.
| Variable | Source of Raw Data | Observation | Average | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM2.5 | Ma et al. [ | 2460 | 38.3348 | 28.7365 | 1.2111 | 519.887 |
| TPU | Chinese Industrial Enterprise database | 2460 | 0.3262 | 0.2161 | 0 | 1.7808 |
| K/L | China City Statistical Yearbook | 2363 | 10.3893 | 0.9890 | 6.0551 | 12.8785 |
| Pop | China City Statistical Yearbook | 2364 | 5.8224 | 0.7811 | 2.3026 | 9.3557 |
| Manu | China City Statistical Yearbook | 2379 | 46.0783 | 10.9552 | 18.5 | 89.7 |
| Fdi | China City Statistical Yearbook | 2290 | 8.6271 | 1.9206 | 2.3026 | 13.4821 |
| p. c. GDP | China City Statistical Yearbook | 2386 | 5.8155 | 0.9392 | 1.9491 | 8.8691 |
| Land | China City Statistical Yearbook | 2365 | 13.9334 | 16.6423 | 0.236 | 253.356 |
| Output | China City Statistical Yearbook | 2150 | 14.8557 | 1.2630 | 11.0396 | 18.8850 |
Note: The data were obtained by manual sorting and calculation by the author. Due to statistical problems in some years in the urban yearbook, some data are missing. Among them, K/L, Pop, FDI, p. c. GDP and Output all adopt logarithmic form.
Baseline regression results.
| PM2.5 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
|
| −5.295 ** | −5.569 ** | −5.599 ** | −5.757 ** | −5.582 ** | −5.737 ** | −5.658 ** | −6.345 ** |
| (−2.20) | (−2.19) | (−2.20) | (−2.26) | (−2.26) | (−2.34) | (−2.29) | (−2.56) | |
| Fdi | 0.105 | 0.106 | 0.0927 | −0.0344 | 0.0811 | 0.0612 | 0.143 | |
| (0.31) | (0.32) | (0.28) | (−0.10) | (0.26) | (0.19) | (0.44) | ||
| Pop | 0.686 | 0.503 | 0.455 | 2.056 | 4.608 * | 5.787 ** | ||
| (0.40) | (0.28) | (0.26) | (1.07) | (1.77) | (2.16) | |||
| Manu | 0.126 * | 0.0817 | 0.202 *** | 0.192 ** | 0.244 *** | |||
| (1.83) | (1.23) | (2.70) | (2.60) | (2.80) | ||||
| K/L | 1.426 ** | 1.584 ** | 1.598 ** | 1.528 * | ||||
| (2.13) | (2.40) | (2.42) | (1.88) | |||||
| p.c.GDP | −6.286 *** | −5.476 ** | −5.572 ** | |||||
| (−3.12) | (−2.56) | (−2.40) | ||||||
| Land | 0.425 | 0.548 ** | ||||||
| (1.35) | (2.02) | |||||||
| Output | −1.624 | |||||||
| (−0.80) | ||||||||
| _cons | 39.37 *** | 38.42 *** | 34.41 *** | 29.88 *** | 18.44 | 0.957 | −19.38 | −4.988 |
| (83.67) | (13.21) | (3.35) | (2.79) | (1.52) | (0.07) | (−0.99) | (−0.14) | |
| Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Prefecture FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| N | 2460 | 2289 | 2289 | 2280 | 2279 | 2279 | 2279 | 2080 |
| R2 | 0.8774 | 0.8780 | 0.8780 | 0.8778 | 0.8781 | 0.8787 | 0.8789 | 0.8785 |
Note: ***, **, * represent the significance level of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively; the values in brackets are the corresponding T-statistics under robust standard error of clustering at the city level.
Validity test.
| PM2.5 | ||
|---|---|---|
| (1) Dynamic Effect | (2) Expectation Effect | |
| year1999*TPU | −7.905 | |
| (−1.11) | ||
| Year2000*TPU | −10.30 | |
| (−1.49) | ||
| Year2001*TPU | −9.833 | |
| (−1.48) | ||
| Year2002*TPU | −12.80 * | |
| (−1.94) | ||
| Year2003*TPU | −23.75 ** | |
| (−1.97) | ||
| Year2004*TPU | −11.48 * | |
| (−1.67) | ||
| Year2005*TPU | −15.20 ** | |
| (−2.28) | ||
| Year2006*TPU | −15.37 ** | |
| (−2.33) | ||
| Year2007*TPU | −15.15 ** | |
| (−2.27) | ||
|
| −6.622 *** | |
| (−2.67) | ||
|
| −0.789 | |
| (−0.26) | ||
| _cons | −1.430 | −4.818 |
| (−0.04) | (−0.14) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES |
| Prefecture FE | YES | YES |
| N | 2080 | 2080 |
| R2 | 0.8786 | 0.8784 |
Note: ***, ** and * represent significant levels of 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively; the values in brackets are the corresponding T-statistics under robust standard error of clustering at the city level.
Figure 3Placebo test.
Robustness test.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPU1 | TPU2 | TPU3 | Province FE | SE Clustered at | Winsorize | Truncate | Expand | Trade | Trade | Add | |
|
| −7.399 ** | ||||||||||
| (−2.11) | |||||||||||
|
| −5.899 ** | ||||||||||
| (−2.02) | |||||||||||
|
| −5.185 * | ||||||||||
| (−1.95) | |||||||||||
|
| −6.345 ** | −6.345 ** | −4.259 ** | −3.775 ** | −6.167 ** | −8.367 ** | −5.005 ** | −7.098 ** | |||
| (−2.55) | (−2.24) | (−2.34) | (−2.23) | (−2.29) | (−2. 59) | (−2. 19) | (−2.79) | ||||
| _cons | −4.984 | −5.080 | −5.139 | −4.988 | −4.988 | −17.31 | −16.35 | 30.56 ** | −10.61 | −38. 48 | 5.101 |
| (−0.14) | (−0.15) | (−0.15) | (−0.14) | (−0.10) | (−0.61) | (−0.59) | (2.51) | (−0.30) | (−0. 92) | (0.14) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Energy consumption | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Prefecture FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Province FE | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| N | 2080 | 2080 | 2080 | 2080 | 2080 | 2080 | 1865 | 3519 | 2080 | 1696 | |
| R2 | 0. 8784 | 0.8784 | 0.8767 | 0.8785 | 0.9345 | 0.9185 | 0.9135 | 0.9320 | 0.8785 | 0.8694 |
Note: ** and * represent significant levels of 5% and 10% respectively; except column (5), the values in brackets are t statistics corresponding to a robust standard error of clustering at city level.
Bartik IV.
| (1) First Stage Regression | (2) Second Stage Regression | |
|---|---|---|
| TPU | PM2.5 | |
|
| 1.048 *** | −86.847 * |
| (2.85) | (−1.70) | |
| _cons | 0.135 | −12.646 *** |
| (0.32) | (5.22) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES |
| Prefecture FE | YES | YES |
| N | 2080 | 2080 |
| R2 | 0.8066 | 0.2133 |
Note: *** and * represent significant levels of 1% and 10% respectively.
Heterogeneity test results.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern City | Central City | Western City | Large and Medium-Sized City | Small City | |
|
| −6.488 | −5.675 | −7.822 * | 1.593 | −7.359 *** |
| (−1.59) | (−1.34) | (−1.84) | (0.25) | (−2.74) | |
| _cons | −49.02 | −197.1 | −41.32 | 124.1 | −24.34 |
| (−1.23) | (−1.35) | (−0.45) | (1.29) | (−0.63) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Prefecture FE | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| N | 847 | 793 | 440 | 404 | 1676 |
| R2 | 0.9313 | 0.9403 | 0.7614 | 0.9501 | 0.8566 |
Note: *** and * represent significant levels of 1% and 10%, respectively; the values in brackets are the corresponding T-statistics under robust standard error of clustering at the city level.
Test results of influencing mechanism.
| (1) | (2) | |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Effect | Industrial Structure Effect | |
|
| 0.580 * | 1.273 ** |
| (1.68) | (2.07) | |
| _cons | −2.328 | 62.09 *** |
| (−0.83) | (5.22) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES |
| Prefecture FE | YES | YES |
| N | 2080 | 2080 |
| R2 | 0.9754 | 0.9393 |
Note: ***, **, * represent the significance level of 1%, 5%, 10%, respectively; The values in brackets are the corresponding T-statistics under robust standard error of clustering at the city level.