| Literature DB >> 36211699 |
Dingqing Wang1, Enqi Zhang2, Peng Qiu3, Xiaoyu Hong4.
Abstract
In the post-COVID era, how to improve the level of regional sustainable development has attracted much attention. And the vigorous development of the sports economy may be closely related to the regional sustainable development. This paper explores the impact and mechanism analysis of government sports public expenditure on regional sustainable development from the perspective of sports economic development. The study found that China's sustainable development presents obvious ladder-like characteristics and highlights the regional imbalance and inadequacy of regional green and coordinated development. And the government's increase in public expenditure on sports can significantly promote regional sustainable development and improve the level of regional green and coordinated development. With the continuous improvement of the regional economic development, the effect of sports public expenditure continues to increase. It can be seen from this that implementing the strategy of strengthening the country through sports under the government's guidance is an essential guarantee for the public health and quality of life and the sustainable development of the economy and society. Additionally, the development level of market finance is also an important driving factor for the government's public expenditure on sports to improve the level of sustainable development in the region. From the mechanism analysis, the government activates the local residents' consumption level by increasing the public expenditure on sports, thus promoting regional sustainable development.Entities:
Keywords: public expenditure on sports; regional sustainable development; residents' consumption; sports economic; threshold effect
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211699 PMCID: PMC9533120 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.976188
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Index of regional sustainable development level.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| The regional sustainable development ( | Coordination (Z1) | Level of coordinated development of regional industries (Z11) | Degree of rationalization of industrial structure Z |
| Level of coordinated urban–rural development (Z12): | Urban–rural income gap (Income of rural residents/Income of urban residents) Z12 | ||
| Greenness (Z2) | Basic environmental change degree (Z21 − 24) | PM2.5 population weighted value Z21; Unit energy consumption to create GDP value Z22; Industrial solid waste utilization rate Z23; Urban wastewater utilization rate Z24 | |
| Development of environmental protection technology (Z25) | Number of green invention patents granted (mainly including seven categories such as alternative energy, transportation, energy conservation, waste management, agriculture and forestry, administrative supervision and design, and nuclear power) Z25 |
aThis paper uses theil index to measure the degree of rationalization of industrial structure, and the calculation formula is
.
The yi, m, t represents the proportion of the m industry in region i in the GDP in period t, and the li,m,t represents the proportion of the m industry in region i in the total employment from one person in period t. In addition, the smaller the value of z, the more reasonable the industrial structure.
Descriptive statistics for the variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 360 | 0.459 | 0.454 | 0.093 | 0.237 | 0.745 |
|
| 360 | 0.511 | 0.510 | 0.165 | 0.000 | 0.877 |
|
| 360 | 0.442 | 0.443 | 0.088 | 0.249 | 0.790 |
|
| 360 | 12.901 | 13.000 | 0.828 | 9.717 | 14.527 |
|
| 360 | 12.993 | 13.070 | 1.321 | 8.711 | 15.262 |
|
| 360 | 1.152 | 0.984 | 0.669 | 0.380 | 4.048 |
|
| 360 | 0.058 | 0.052 | 0.030 | 0.016 | 0.177 |
|
| 360 | 3.798 | 3.298 | 2.308 | 0.614 | 13.765 |
|
| 360 | 0.135 | 0.123 | 0.065 | −0.040 | 0.298 |
|
| 360 | 0.108 | 0.069 | 0.133 | 0.001 | 0.851 |
|
| 360 | 1.089 | 0.934 | 0.617 | 0.239 | 4.142 |
|
| 360 | 2.186 | −0.196 | 7.706 | −0.946 | 66.562 |
|
| 360 | 1.110 | 0.405 | 2.239 | 0.036 | 21.230 |
|
| 360 | 0.279 | 0.256 | 0.123 | 0.060 | 0.631 |
Figure 1Average ranking of sustainable development of Chinese provinces. The Drawing Review number is GS(2019)1822. And the source is http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/download.html?searchText=GS(2019)1822.
Baseline regression result.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.040*** | 0.037*** | 0.044*** |
| (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.007) | |
|
| −0.078*** | −0.078*** | −0.077*** |
| (0.008) | (0.007) | (0.008) | |
|
| 0.013*** | 0.012*** | 0.015*** |
| (0.002) | (0.001) | (0.002) | |
|
| 0.001* | 0.001 | 0.003*** |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
|
| −0.175*** | −0.187*** | −0.157*** |
| (0.029) | (0.030) | (0.029) | |
|
| 0.029 | 0.041 | 0.009 |
| (0.031) | (0.031) | (0.033) | |
|
| 0.031 | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| (0.030) | (0.029) | (0.031) | |
|
| 0.023 | 0.067 | −0.046 |
| (0.094) | (0.090) | (0.101) | |
| σ | 0.055*** | ||
| (0.008) | |||
| σ | 0.027*** | ||
| (0.001) | |||
| Wald test | 1328.38*** | 1277.11*** | |
| adj. R2 | 0.785 | ||
| | 360 | 360 | 360 |
The values in brackets are SDs. ***Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 1%. **Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 5%. *Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 10%.
The robustness checks.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.072*** | 0.037*** | 0.044** | |
| (0.012) | (0.009) | (0.018) | ||
|
| 0.035*** | |||
| (0.003) | ||||
|
| −0.353** | 0.045 | −0.046 | 0.009 |
| (0.164) | (0.117) | (0.247) | (0.048) | |
|
| YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Province fixed effect | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| adj. | 0.581 | 0.747 | 0.803 | 0.832 |
| | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
The values in brackets are SDs. ***Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 1%. **Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 5%. *Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 10%.
Endogeneity test.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.014*** | 0.014*** | 0.014*** |
| (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | |
|
| 0.416*** | 0.416*** | 0.416*** |
| (0.064) | (0.064) | (0.064) | |
|
| 0.9822 | ||
|
| 18485.1 | ||
| [0.000] | |||
| Minimum eigenvalue statistic | 18071.9 | ||
| adj. R2 | 0.736 | 0.736 | 0.736 |
| | 330 | 330 | 330 |
The values in brackets “()” are SDs. The values in brackets “[]” are the value of p of the corresponding test statistics. The values in brackets are SDs. ***Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 1%. **Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 5%. *Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 10%.
The existence test of the threshold effect of the regional development level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level of regional development | Single threshold | 33.34 | 0.0367 | 1.3890 | 300 |
| Double threshold | 40.03 | 0.0033 | 2.0323 | ||
| Triple threshold | 29.11 | 0.3800 | 4.1206 |
Threshold regression results.
|
| |
|---|---|
|
| |
| 0.025* | |
| (0.015) | |
| 0.028* | |
| (0.015) | |
| 0.030** | |
| (0.014) | |
|
| 0.138 |
| (0.198) | |
| control | YES |
| adj. R2 | 0.838 |
| N | 360 |
The values in brackets are SDs.
***Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 1%.
**Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 5%.
*Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 10%.
The regression result of the moderating effect based on the level of development of finance.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.035*** | 0.033*** | 0.046*** | 0.031*** |
| (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.013) | (0.009) | |
|
| 0.592*** | |||
| (0.171) | ||||
|
| 0.047*** | 0.107*** | 0.026* | |
| (0.013) | (0.021) | (0.015) | ||
|
| 0.038 | 0.059 | −0.113 | 0.104 |
| (0.103) | (0.104) | (0.165) | (0.121) | |
|
| YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Province fixed effect | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| adj. R2 | 0.792 | 0.792 | 0.612 | 0.749 |
| N | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
The values in brackets are SDs. ***Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 1%. **Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 5%. *Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 10%.
The regression result of the mediating effect based on residents' consumption levels.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.345*** | 0.022*** | 0.034*** | 0.019** |
| (0.038) | (0.008) | (0.013) | (0.009) | |
|
| 0.064*** | 0.109*** | 0.051*** | |
| (0.010) | (0.016) | (0.012) | ||
|
| −3.217*** | 0.161 | −0.004 | 0.208* |
| (0.521) | (0.101) | (0.163) | (0.120) | |
|
| YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Province fixed effect | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| adj. R2 | 0.857 | 0.808 | 0.630 | 0.760 |
| N | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
| Sobel test | 0.022*** | 0.038*** | 0.017*** | |
| (0.004) | (0.007) | (0.005) | ||
| Bootstrap test | 0.022*** | 0.038*** | 0.017*** | |
| (0.005) | (0.008) | (0.005) |
The values in brackets are SDs. ***Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 1%. **Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 5%. *Indicates that the estimated coefficients are significant at the confidence level of 10%.