| Literature DB >> 36232150 |
Ping Ji1, Weidong Huo1,2, Lan Bo3, Weiwei Zhang3, Xiaoxian Chen2.
Abstract
China has committed to reaching carbon peak before 2030. To realize the carbon peak goal, financial development plays an essential role in developing a green economy. Based on the panel data of 30 provinces in China from 2006 to 2019, this paper explores the impact of financial development on carbon intensity both theoretically and empirically. A financial development index system is constructed and computed using the entropy method. A spatial lag panel data model is employed to empirically test the interaction effect of financial development on carbon intensity. Moreover, the mediating effects of industrial upgrading and technological innovation are further investigated. The results show that: first, carbon intensity generates strong spatial spillover effects between provinces in China. Second, financial development significantly reduces carbon intensity, and is most pronounced in central China, followed by western and eastern China. Third, industrial upgrading and technological innovation are important channels to assist financial development in cutting down carbon intensity, and both produce positive spatial spillover effects. These findings suggest that inter-regional cooperation and coordination on financial development, industrial upgrading, and technological innovation are conducive to achieving low-carbon development targets. This research not only has practical significance to China, but also provides global reference value to other countries.Entities:
Keywords: carbon intensity; financial development; industrial upgrading; spatial econometric model; technological innovation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36232150 PMCID: PMC9564630 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912850
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Impact mechanism analysis.
Entropy weighting of financial development indicators.
| Index | Indicators | Entropy | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial development | Deposits of the banking sector in RMB 100 million | 0.934 | 0.074 |
| Loans of the banking sector in RMB 100 million | 0.939 | 0.068 | |
| Income of the insurance sector in RMB 100 million | 0.933 | 0.075 | |
| Expense of the insurance sector in RMB 100 million | 0.934 | 0.075 | |
| Proceeds of bonds in RMB 100 million | 0.840 | 0.180 | |
| Proceeds of shares in RMB 100 million | 0.858 | 0.159 | |
| Number of listed companies | 0.922 | 0.088 | |
| Number of financial institutions | 0.970 | 0.034 | |
| Fixed asset investment in RMB 100 million | 0.912 | 0.099 | |
| Average salaries of financial practitioners in RMB | 0.982 | 0.021 | |
| Number of financial practitioners in 10 thousand people | 0.964 | 0.040 | |
| GDP of the finance sector in RMB 100 million | 0.922 | 0.087 |
Figure 2Provincial carbon intensity from 2006 to 2019.
Figure 3(a–d) Geographical distribution of provincial carbon intensity in 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2019.
Variables and descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Symbol | Meaning | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon intensity | CI | ln (Carbon emission/real GDP) | 0.9669 | 0.6504 | −1.1597 | 2.5484 |
| Financial development | FD | ln (Financial development index) | −0.4574 | 0.9882 | −3.1616 | 1.8681 |
| Industrial upgrading | Stru | ln (Industrial upgrading index) | 1.8356 | 0.7516 | −0.6687 | 3.4934 |
| Technological innovation | Tech | ln (Technological innovation index) | −0.8907 | 1.4137 | −4.5217 | 2.4249 |
| Degree of openness | Open | ln (Imports and exports/GDP) | −1.7312 | 0.9723 | −4.3662 | 0.5191 |
| Foreign investment contribution | FDI | ln (FDI/GDP) | −4.2958 | 1.0880 | −9.1150 | −2.4892 |
| Government intervention | Gov | ln (Fiscal expenditure/GDP) | −1.5731 | 0.4382 | −4.3036 | −0.4646 |
| Environmental regulation | Reg | ln (Government regulation index) | −0.2166 | 0.8541 | −3.9026 | 2.0702 |
Figure 4Provincial average financial development indexes from 2006 to 2019.
Spatial autocorrelation test results of carbon intensity between provinces in China.
| Year | Moran’s I | Geary’s C | Year | Moran’s I | Geary’s C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 0.198 *** | 0.778 *** | 2013 | 0.218 *** | 0.707 *** |
| 2007 | 0.197 *** | 0.793 *** | 2014 | 0.208 *** | 0.714 *** |
| 2008 | 0.214 *** | 0.768 *** | 2015 | 0.201 *** | 0.711 *** |
| 2009 | 0.206 *** | 0.763 *** | 2016 | 0.208 *** | 0.691 *** |
| 2010 | 0.211 *** | 0.747 *** | 2017 | 0.200 *** | 0.699 *** |
| 2011 | 0.212 *** | 0.729 *** | 2018 | 0.212 *** | 0.705 *** |
| 2012 | 0.218 *** | 0.714 *** | 2019 | 0.194 *** | 0.725 *** |
Note: *** represent the significance level of 1%.
Figure 5(a–d) Moran scatterplots of carbon intensity in 2006, 2010, 2015, 2019.
Results of the impact of financial development on carbon intensity and the sub-regional heterogeneity analysis.
| CI | Full Sample | Eastern Region | Central Region | Western Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| FD | −0.2909 *** | −0.1100 *** | −0.2542 *** | −0.2557 *** |
| (−12.27) | (−3.05) | (−6.25) | (−7.30) | |
| W × CI | 0.4612 *** | 0.2490 *** | 0.4193 *** | 0.7178 *** |
| (7.43) | (3.82) | (5.07) | (11.28) | |
| Open | 0.0221 | 0.6403 *** | −0.0615 | 0.0005 |
| (0.70) | (10.21) | (−1.23) | (0.01) | |
| FDI | −0.0121 | −0.0028 | −0.0148 | 0.0146 |
| (−0.78) | (−0.14) | (−0.39) | (0.77) | |
| Gov | 0.1333 *** | 0.0387 | 0.0752 ** | 0.5369 *** |
| (3.64) | (0.41) | (2.47) | (6.39) | |
| Reg | 0.0019 | −0.0900 *** | 0.0249 | 0.0584 *** |
| (0.15) | (−5.50) | (1.53) | (2.74) | |
| Year-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log-L | 168.9820 | 105.7853 | 77.5682 | 89.8373 |
| R2 | 0.4359 | 0.1832 | 0.2141 | 0.6007 |
| N | 420 | 154 | 112 | 152 |
Note: *** and ** represent the significance level of 1% and 5%, respectively. The z-statistics are in parentheses.
Results of the impact of financial development on carbon intensity and the sub-regional heterogeneity analysis in non-linear models.
| CI | Full Sample | Eastern Region | Central Region | Western Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| FD | −0.3107 *** | −0.1054 *** | −0.3731 *** | −0.3103 *** |
| (−11.84) | (−2.91) | (−7.30) | (−6.97) | |
| FD2 | −0.0178 * | −0.0127 | −0.1055 *** | −0.0378 ** |
| (−1.78) | (−1.01) | (−3.76) | (−2.02) | |
| W × CI | 0.4402 *** | 0.2586 *** | 0.4001 *** | 0.7086 *** |
| (6.92) | (3.94) | (4.98) | (10.93) | |
| Open | 0.0218 | 0.6305 *** | −0.0224 | 0.0153 |
| (0.70) | (9.98) | (−0.46) | (0.46) | |
| FDI | −0.0058 | −0.0011 | 0.0207 | 0.0273 |
| (−0.37) | (−0.06) | (0.56) | (1.38) | |
| Gov | 0.1266 *** | 0.0289 | 0.0560 * | 0.4592 *** |
| (3.45) | (0.31) | (1.93) | (5.02) | |
| Reg | 0.0025 | −0.0903 *** | 0.0313 ** | 0.0578 *** |
| (0.20) | (−5.53) | (2.04) | (2.74) | |
| Year-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log-L | 170.5592 | 106.2890 | 84.2467 | 91.8653 |
| R2 | 0.4436 | 0.1744 | 0.3163 | 0.5186 |
| N | 420 | 154 | 112 | 152 |
Note: ***, **, and * represent the significance level of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. The z-statistics are in parentheses.
Figure 6The inflection point of the inverted U-shaped relationship.
Results of robustness tests.
| CI | SLX | SEM | SDM | Drop Four Municipalities | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| FD | −0.2250 *** | −0.2357 *** | −0.3662 *** | −0.3987 *** | −0.2152 *** | −0.2204 *** | −0.2705 *** | −0.3015 *** |
| (-8.17) | (−7.80) | (−13.45) | (−14.41) | (−7.83) | (−7.37) | (−10.19) | (−10.11) | |
| FD2 | −0.0150 | −0.0314 *** | −0.0142 | −0.0223 ** | ||||
| (−1.51) | (−2.98) | (−1.45) | (−2.34) | |||||
| W × FD | −0.3433 *** | −0.2929 *** | −0.2598 *** | −0.1798 *** | ||||
| (-8.57) | (−7.05) | (−5.16) | (−3.50) | |||||
| W × FD2 | 0.1206 *** | 0.1359 *** | ||||||
| (4.54) | (5.16) | |||||||
| W × Error | 0.3104 *** | 0.3041 *** | ||||||
| (2.88) | (2.88) | |||||||
| W × CI | 0.2180 *** | 0.2864 *** | 0.3893 *** | 0.3497 *** | ||||
| (2.68) | (3.61) | (5.44) | (4.71) | |||||
| Control-V | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log-L | 178.7966 | 189.2574 | 149.2974 | 153.7013 | 182.2776 | 195.4101 | 190.4868 | 193.2105 |
| R2 | 0.4049 | 0.4073 | 0.4173 | 0.4321 | 0.4203 | 0.4157 | 0.3969 | 0.4021 |
| N | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 | 364 | 364 |
Note: *** and ** represent the significance level of 1% and 5%, respectively. The z-statistics are in parentheses.
Results of the mediating effect test.
| Industrial Upgrading | Technological Innovation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| Stru | CI | Stru | CI | Tech | CI | Tech | CI | |
| FD | 0.5609 *** | −0.2831 *** | 0.7113 *** | −0.3074 *** | 0.8020 *** | −0.0607 * | 0.7583 *** | −0.0814 ** |
| (8.82) | (−10.79) | (10.23) | (−10.22) | (20.49) | (−1.73) | (17.43) | (−2.24) | |
| FD2 | 0.1383 *** | −0.0172 * | −0.0331 ** | −0.0192 ** | ||||
| (5.03) | (−1.65) | (−2.19) | (−2.06) | |||||
| Stru | −0.0119 | −0.0040 | ||||||
| (−0.70) | (−0.23) | |||||||
| W × Stru | 0.4731 *** | 0.4135 *** | ||||||
| (7.74) | (6.64) | |||||||
| Tech | −0.2348 *** | −0.2362 *** | ||||||
| (−8.37) | (−8.45) | |||||||
| W × Tech | 0.5125 *** | 0.5364 *** | ||||||
| (12.66) | (12.96) | |||||||
| W × CI | 0.4516 *** | 0.4377 *** | 0.2906 *** | 0.2640 *** | ||||
| (7.07) | (6.77) | (4.48) | (3.98) | |||||
| Control-V | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province-FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log-L | −233.4237 | 169.2240 | −221.0764 | 170.5848 | 10.8907 | 201.7955 | 13.2670 | 203.9188 |
| R2 | 0.3893 | 0.4397 | 0.4083 | 0.4446 | 0.8260 | 0.4959 | 0.8220 | 0.5028 |
| N | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 |
Note: ***, **, and * represent the significance level of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. The z-statistics are in parentheses.