How to utilize financial instrument to deal with environmental issues has been a focal topic. Taking the introduction of green credit program as a “quasi-natural experiment,” the propensity score matching and difference-in-difference approach (PSM-DID) are used to investigate the impact of the green credit policy implemented by Chinese government on firm-level industrial pollutant emissions. The estimation results indicate that the green credit policy significantly reduces corporate sulfur dioxide emissions. Heterogeneity analysis shows this impact is more pronounced for large-scale enterprises and enterprises located in the eastern region. The estimated mediation models reveal that after the implementation of the green credit policy, reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions can be attribute to the increased environmental investment and improved energy consumption intensity. Moreover, the green credit policy is also significantly effective in mitigating the discharge of other common industrial pollutants. Our findings highlight the importance of green credit policies in achieving greener industrial production and more sustainable economic development.
In this paper, we study the impact of endogenous innovation and the external technological environment on total factor productivity. We first develop an endogenous growth model and derive a testable empirical model. We then estimate the empirical model based on the World Bank's worldwide enterprise survey data for 119 countries spanning 2007-2017. Our results suggest that: (i) enterprises' R&D activity increases their total factor productivity; (ii) a higher level of external technology weakens the impact of the R&D activity on total factor productivity; and (iii) enterprises located in low-and middle-income countries often lack continuous innovation.
Clarifying the time-varying spillovers among pilot carbon emission permit trading markets in China is an important foundation for building the national carbon emission trading market. We calculate the dynamic spillover of carbon price return among the pilot carbon emission permit trading markets in China with the time-varying connectedness approach. The dataset is constructed from transaction data from seven pilot carbon markets in China during the period of June 23, 2014, to December 31, 2020. The quantitative analysis suggests that (i) Beijing and Chongqing carbon emission trading markets are the main spillover markets of carbon price returns, with strong pricing power, while the Guangdong and Tianjin markets are the main receivers of the price return spillover in other pilot carbon emission trading markets. (ii) The spillover effect among China’s carbon markets has a strong policy orientation. The improvement and development of the carbon market driven by macroeconomic regulation and control policies can effectively improve the spillover ability of the carbon market, and the market trading activity, namely the volatility of the carbon price return rate, can amplify the spillover ability of the carbon market in the short term. (iii) There exist three types of price return spillover among China’s pilot carbon emission trading markets, including central divergence, one-way chain transmission, and circular spillover. Along with the improvement of market operation efficiency, the central divergent type of spillover shifts to the pattern of circular spillover. It is necessary for the government to improve market efficiency and ensure the coordinated development of China’s pilot carbon emission trading market and national carbon emission trading market.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-022-19914-4.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.