Does environmental protection tax improve green total factor productivity? Experimental evidence from China

被引:10
作者
Yao, Chaoxia [1 ]
Xi, Bin [1 ]
机构
[1] Henan Univ Technol, Sch Econ & Trade, Zhengzhou 450001, Peoples R China
关键词
Environmental protection tax; Green total factor productivity; Synthetic control method; Difference-in-differences model; GROWTH EVIDENCE; PERFORMANCE; INNOVATION; INDUSTRY; POLICIES;
D O I
10.1007/s11356-023-29739-4
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Enhancing green total factor productivity (GTFP) is essential for achieving the objective of green development, and the effect of environmental protection tax (EPT), a crucial instrument for addressing environmental challenges, on green TFP is crucial. Based on provincial panel data from 2004 to 2020 in China, this study uses inter-provincial differences in environmental protection tax rates as a quasi-natural experiment and utilizes a synthetic control method to assess the impact of the "changing sewage charge to tax" on regional GTFP. The empirical results suggest that EPT can help enhance GTFP, a finding that still holds after regional placebo tests, time placebo tests, and difference-in-differences robustness tests. The mechanism test demonstrates that EPT influences GTFP via the industrial structure impact and the green technological innovation effect. According to heterogeneity research, regions with a high level of marketization and financial growth are more significantly affected by environmental protection tax policy. This paper offers crucial empirical data for assessing the efficacy of environmental protection tax policy and enhancing the environmental tax system.
引用
收藏
页码:105353 / 105373
页数:21
相关论文
共 75 条
[1]   The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country [J].
Abadie, A ;
Gardeazabal, J .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2003, 93 (01) :113-132
[2]   Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program [J].
Abadie, Alberto ;
Diamond, Alexis ;
Hainmueller, Jens .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 105 (490) :493-505
[3]   Environmental taxes and economic growth: Evidence from panel causality tests [J].
Abdullah, Sabah ;
Morley, Bruce .
ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2014, 42 :27-33
[4]   Environmental policies and productivity growth: Evidence across industries and firms [J].
Albrizio, Silvia ;
Kozluk, Tomasz ;
Zipperer, Vera .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2017, 81 :209-226
[5]   THE MODERATOR MEDIATOR VARIABLE DISTINCTION IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL-RESEARCH - CONCEPTUAL, STRATEGIC, AND STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS [J].
BARON, RM ;
KENNY, DA .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1986, 51 (06) :1173-1182
[6]  
Chen SY., 2018, ACAD MON, V50, P39, DOI [10.19862/j.cnki.xsyk.2018.10.004, DOI 10.19862/J.CNKI.XSYK.2018.10.004]
[7]   The effect of environmental regulation on green total-factor productivity in China's industry [J].
Cheng, Zhonghua ;
Kong, Shiyu .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2022, 94
[8]   Do raising environmental costs promote industrial green growth? A Quasi-natural experiment based on the policy of raising standard sewage charges [J].
Cheng, Zhonghua ;
Li, Xiang .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2022, 343
[9]   How environmental taxes and carbon emissions are related in the G7 economies? [J].
Dogan, Buhari ;
Lan Khanh Chu ;
Ghosh, Sudeshna ;
Huong Hoang Diep Truong ;
Balsalobre-Lorente, Daniel .
RENEWABLE ENERGY, 2022, 187 :645-656
[10]   Pollute less or tax more? Asymmetries in the EU environmental taxes-Ecological balance nexus [J].
Esen, Omer ;
Yildirim, Durmus cagri ;
Yildirim, Seda .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2021, 91