Environmental Tax, Polluting Plants' Strategies and Effectiveness: Evidence from China

被引:28
作者
He, Pan [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Bing [3 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ, State Key Lab Pollut Control & Resource Reuse, Sch Environm, Nanjing 210023, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Maryland, Dept Geog Sci, 2181 Samuel J LeFrak Hall,7251 Preinkert Dr, College Pk, MD 20742 USA
[3] Nanjing Univ, State Key Lab Pollut Control & Resource Reuse, Sch Environm, Sch Govt, Room 228,163 Xianlin Ave, Nanjing 210023, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
DEVELOPING-COUNTRIES; POLICY; ENFORCEMENT; INNOVATION; PROGRAM; CHOICE;
D O I
10.1002/pam.22052
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Although environmental taxes have become a popular policy tool, their effectiveness for pollution control and impact on the compliance strategies of agents remains questionable. This research uses a quasi-experimental design to examine the effectiveness of the Pay for Permit policy, an environmental tax that has been imposed on water pollution emissions in Lake Tai Basin, Jiangsu, China, since 2009. A plant-level panel dataset from 2007 to 2010 is used for both difference-in-differences and difference-in-difference-in-differences analyses to compare the pollution discharge, pollution abatement, and pollution generation of policy participants and control groups. The results indicate that treated plants reduce their emissions by about 40 percent after two years of the policy implementation. Thus, the policy generated approximately a 7 percent decrease in the industrial chemical oxygen demand emission in the entire Lake Tai Basin based on the emission level of 2007. Pollution is primarily reduced via end-of-pipe abatement instead of cleaner production. Our results show the effectiveness of environmental taxes in controlling industrial pollution, and indicate that the tax may not motivate the adoption of innovative techniques in the short term.
引用
收藏
页码:493 / +
页数:38
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Facing or evading? The impact of environmental taxes on the migration of heavily polluting enterprises in China
    Zhao, Na
    Zhao, Ming
    Long, Han
    Yuan, Liang
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 27 (5) : 11773 - 11796
  • [42] Does environmental protection tax improve green total factor productivity? Experimental evidence from China
    Yao, Chaoxia
    Xi, Bin
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2023, 30 (48) : 105353 - 105373
  • [43] Environmental Effects of Credit Allocation Structure and Environmental Expenditures: Evidence from China
    Yang, Qiming
    He, Jun
    Liu, Ting
    Zhu, Zhitao
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (11)
  • [44] Does Tax Sharing Matter for Export Quality Upgrading? Evidence from China
    Zhang, Kunpeng
    Guo, Yibei
    Hu, Xiaotian
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 16 (11)
  • [45] GOVERNMENT SIZE AND TAX EVASION: EVIDENCE FROM CHINA
    Li, Lixing
    Ma, Guangrong
    PACIFIC ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2015, 20 (02) : 346 - 364
  • [46] The green bonus of tax incentives: Evidence from China
    Wu, Qingyang
    Wang, Yaqi
    Shen, Guangjun
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2024, 227
  • [47] Green credit guidelines and corporate financialization: Evidence from heavily polluting enterprises in China
    Song, Zhihui
    Jia, Qinmin
    He, Zexiu
    FINANCE RESEARCH LETTERS, 2025, 76
  • [48] Agglomeration economies and environmental regulatory competition: Evidence from China
    Zheng, Dan
    Shi, Minjun
    Pang, Rui
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 280
  • [49] Green merger and acquisition and export expansion: Evidence from China's polluting enterprises
    Lu, Juan
    SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION, 2022, 30 : 204 - 217
  • [50] Can capital markets identify heterogeneous environmental investment strategies of firms? Evidence from China
    Cheng, Hongwei
    Feng, Yi
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2023, 30 (20) : 58253 - 58275