| Literature DB >> 35627888 |
Guanghui Tian1, Jianming Miao2, Changhong Miao3,4, Yehua Dennis Wei5, Dongyang Yang3.
Abstract
Environmental regulation (ER) and local protectionism (LP) are important policy tools for Chinese local governments to improve the environment and promote growth, respectively, but we know little about their interplay in dealing with pollution-intensive industries and enterprises. Using spatial correlation analysis and spatial panel simultaneous equations models, we investigated the spatial characteristics and interactions of the ER and LP in China's 285 prefectural cities. We found that the high-ER-intensity areas were spreading from the eastern to the central and western regions, and the patterns of LP transited from high in the north and low in the south to high in the west and low in the east. There was a negative correlation spatially between ER and LP. LP could inhibit the increase in ER intensity, while the continuously increasing ER intensity could restrict LP through the competitive behavior from the "race to the bottom" to the "race to the top" among local governments. The effect of ER restricting LP was significant from 2008 to 2013 and prominent in the east, which was dominated by "race to the top" competition, while LP had a greater inhibitory effect on ER in the central and western regions, which preferred to obtain tax revenues from pollution-intensive industries. The results imply that removing the roots of local protectionism, improving the environmental governance system, and formulating differentiated regional environmental regulatory measures will help local governments balance economic growth and environmental protection.Entities:
Keywords: China; environmental regulation; local competition; local protectionism; space panel simultaneous equation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627888 PMCID: PMC9140833 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The interaction mechanisms between LP and ER.
The functional form of ER and LP.
| Imitation and promotion | Imitation and restriction | Imitation and invalidity | |
| Difference and promotion | Difference and restriction | Difference and invalidity | |
| Independence and promotion | Independence and restriction | Independence and invalidity |
Figure 2The spatial distribution and evolution of ER intensity. (a) The intensity of environmental regulation in 2003; (b) the intensity of environmental regulation in 2008; (c) the intensity of environmental regulation in 2013.
Univariate and bivariate global Moran’s I statistics for ER and LP.
| Year |
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moran’s | Moran’s | Moran’s | Moran’s | |||||
| 2003 | 0.432 | 0.001 | 0.191 | 0.001 | −0.065 | 0.007 | −0.028 | 0.125 |
| 2004 | 0.328 | 0.001 | 0.229 | 0.001 | −0.067 | 0.004 | −0.043 | 0.069 |
| 2005 | 0.429 | 0.001 | 0.241 | 0.001 | −0.091 | 0.001 | −0.068 | 0.011 |
| 2006 | 0.429 | 0.001 | 0.198 | 0.001 | −0.092 | 0.001 | −0.065 | 0.032 |
| 2007 | 0.383 | 0.001 | 0.251 | 0.001 | −0.068 | 0.005 | −0.047 | 0.043 |
| 2008 | 0.442 | 0.001 | 0.258 | 0.001 | −0.069 | 0.005 | −0.047 | 0.034 |
| 2009 | 0.265 | 0.001 | 0.231 | 0.001 | −0.056 | 0.012 | −0.037 | 0.091 |
| 2010 | 0.270 | 0.001 | 0.260 | 0.001 | −0.055 | 0.010 | −0.050 | 0.027 |
| 2011 | 0.125 | 0.008 | 0.251 | 0.001 | −0.025 | 0.045 | −0.035 | 0.082 |
| 2012 | 0.098 | 0.016 | 0.248 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.427 | −0.010 | 0.398 |
| 2013 | 0.065 | 0.040 | 0.236 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.368 | −0.012 | 0.391 |
Figure 3The spatial distribution and evolution of the LP index. (a) Local protection index in 2003; (b) local protection index in 2008; (c) local protection index in 2013.
Figure 4Bivariate LISA clustering of ER intensity. (a) Spatial lag of ER intensity in 2004; (b) spatial lag of ER intensity in 2011.
Figure 5Bivariate LISA clustering of the LP index. (a) Spatial lag of the local protection index in 2004; (b) spatial lag of the local protection index in 2011.
Whole-sample estimation results under three spatial weight matrices.
| Variable |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.0359 *** | 0.6326 *** | 0.0127 * | 2.4576 *** | 0.0338 *** | 1.0030 *** |
|
| 0.6124 *** | 3.9405 *** | 1.4011 *** | 8.0671 *** | 0.4143 *** | 4.9218 *** |
|
| −0.0163 *** | −0.0108 * | −0.0186 *** | |||
|
| −5.1052 *** | −4.8659 *** | −5.3739 *** | |||
|
| −0.1572 ** | −0.0592 | −0.0745 * | |||
|
| 0.5398 *** | 0.6633 *** | 0.4081 *** | |||
|
| −5.2749 *** | −7.3899 *** | −5.2810 *** | |||
|
| −0.4507 *** | −0.4955 *** | −0.3973 *** | |||
|
| 0.1363 *** | −0.2729 ** | 0.1798 *** | −0.5160 *** | 0.1379 *** | −0.5128 *** |
|
| −0.9305 *** | −0.6813 *** | −0.7485 *** | |||
|
| −0.1167 *** | −0.1463 *** | −0.1156 *** | |||
|
| −0.0738 *** | −0.0633 *** | −0.0808 *** | |||
|
| 0.0026 *** | 0.0017 ** | 0.0030 *** | |||
|
| −0.0074 *** | −0.0083 *** | −0.0057 *** | |||
|
| −0.0202 *** | −0.0344 *** | −0.0259 *** | |||
|
| −0.2813 *** | 1.3410 ** | −0.4952 *** | 3.6943 *** | −0.2299 *** | 2.3793 *** |
|
| 3135 | |||||
|
| 0.2268 | 0.1270 | 0.2778 | 0.0578 | 0.2172 | 0.0532 |
|
| 0.5673 | 0.2723 | 0.5190 | |||
Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Estimated results by stage and by region.
| GOV Equation | 2003–2007 | 2009–2013 | Eastern Region | Central Region | Western Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.4274 *** | 0.5173 *** | 0.1995 *** | 0.4769 *** | 0.4429 *** |
|
| 0.0078 | 0.0829 *** | −0.0288 *** | −0.0510 ** | −0.0206 |
|
| −0.0058 | −0.0642 *** | −0.0128 *** | −0.0507 ** | 0.0192 |
|
| 0.1167 *** | 0.0923 *** | 0.3304 *** | 0.2007 *** | 0.1130 *** |
|
| −0.6116 *** | −1.0838 *** | −0.8820 *** | −0.4385 ** | −1.2533 *** |
|
| −0.1215 *** | −0.0718 *** | −0.1349 *** | −0.0997 *** | −0.1887 *** |
|
| −0.1622 *** | −0.0357 * | 0.1606 *** | −0.0236 | −0.0818 *** |
|
| 0.0047 *** | 0.0022 ** | 0.0076 *** | 0.0009 | 0.0066 *** |
|
| −0.0057 * | −0.0068 * | −0.0009 | −0.0162 *** | −0.0029 * |
|
| −0.0249 *** | −0.0286 *** | −0.0239 *** | −0.0113 ** | −0.0247 *** |
|
| −0.1584 *** | −0.3021 *** | −0.9731 *** | −0.4023 *** | −0.1630 ** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.8531 *** | 0.8997 *** | 0.9147 *** | 0.1518 | −0.1212 |
|
| 3.8463 *** | 4.0965 *** | 0.2904 | 1.2298 *** | 0.9641 ** |
|
| −4.3295 *** | −5.5762 *** | −0.4321 | −3.6399 *** | −1.0375 *** |
|
| 0.6819 *** | 0.2073 *** | 0.9250 *** | 0.1138 *** | 0.2268 *** |
|
| −0.0695 | −0.1693 * | −0.7545 ** | 0.0517 | −0.0490 |
|
| −8.3287 *** | −2.3046 | −11.5641 *** | −2.8971 *** | −2.7032 * |
|
| −0.6254 *** | 0.1136 * | −0.9006 *** | −0.0897 * | −0.1201 |
|
| −0.8422 *** | −0.2183 | −5.2688 *** | 0.6825 *** | 0.3142 *** |
|
| 3.5607 *** | −3.4656 ** | 2.7116 *** | −1.4988 *** | −1.0036 * |
|
| 1425 | 1425 | 957 | 1254 | 924 |
|
| 0.2431 | 0.4235 | 0.3016 | 0.1761 | 0.2819 |
|
| 0.2716 | 0.3017 | 0.3153 | 0.3714 | 0.2185 |
| System | 0.4327 | 0.8012 | 0.5248 | 0.6276 | 0.3045 |
Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Results of the robustness test of adjusted variables.
| Variable | Adjusted ER | Adjusted LP | Adjusted ER and LP | Adjusted ER and LP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.7797 *** | 0.0167 *** | 1.0100 *** | 0.0401 *** | 0.5994 *** | 0.0105 *** | 0.6170 *** | 0.0316 *** |
|
| 2.3826 ** | 0.3408 *** | 6.0779 *** | 0.5606 *** | 4.1521 *** | 0.6878 *** | 5.9831 *** | 0.6588 *** |
|
| −0.0085 *** | −0.2161 * | 0.0022 | −0.0180 *** | ||||
|
| −5.105 *** | −6.5155 *** | −5.0425 *** | −6.2462 *** | ||||
|
| −0.5457 ** | −0.0968 | −0.6190 *** | −0.5797 *** | ||||
|
| 1.0867 *** | 0.3993 *** | 1.4786 *** | 0.7713 *** | ||||
|
| −12.0229 *** | −5.2020 *** | −12.2835 *** | −6.3331 ** | ||||
|
| −1.1864 *** | −0.4035 *** | −1.2533 *** | 0.0399 | ||||
|
| 0.2387 | 0.1575 *** | −0.4602 *** | 0.1088 *** | −0.0365 | 0.1217 *** | 0.0745 | 0.1329 *** |
|
| −0.8525 *** | −0.7135 *** | −0.9869 *** | −1.0692 *** | ||||
|
| −0.1285 *** | −0.0763 *** | −0.0999 *** | −0.0363 | ||||
|
| −0.0826 *** | −0.0614 *** | −0.0523 *** | −0.0082 | ||||
|
| 0.0031 *** | 0.0025 ** | 0.0023 *** | 0.0017 | ||||
|
| −0.0065 *** | −0.0051 ** | −0.0089 *** | −0.0108 *** | ||||
|
| −0.0270 *** | −0.0214 *** | −0.0179 *** | −0.2882 *** | ||||
|
| 2.6516 ** | −0.2729 *** | 2.3213 *** | −0.2052 *** | 0.4399 | −0.2639 *** | −6.8736 | −0.2882 |
|
| 0.2896 | 0.2571 | 0.0375 | 0.161 | 0.309 | 0.2755 | 0.1776 | 0.1784 |
|
| 0.5614 | 0.2724 | 0.5136 | 0.6123 | ||||
Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.