Does the low-carbon city policy make a difference? Empirical evidence of the pilot scheme in China with DEA and PSM-DID
Does the low-carbon city policy make a difference? Empirical evidence of the pilot scheme in China with DEA and PSM-DID
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107238
复制
发表时间：
2021-03-01
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Luo, Ling
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fu, Yang;He, Chenyang;Luo, Ling
中国于2006年首次推出低碳城市试点计划，目前已有三轮一百多个城市被列为试点。有研究认为，该政策显著减少了试点城市的碳排放。不过，在更大的政策杠杆和资源投入下，试点城市整体碳排放量的降低并不困难。更重要的问题是，考虑到各种投入产出指标，低碳城市是否有效地减少了碳排放？从成本效益的角度来看，该政策是否真的通过减少城市层面的碳排放而产生了影响？针对这一差距，本文引入DEA中的Malmquist-Luenberger生产率指数和准实验方法--差异倾向得分匹配法（PSM-DID），对中国低碳城市试点的影响进行评价。除了政策确实提高了试点城市的整体碳排放效率之外，本文还发现了几个有趣的现象：（1）尽管已有研究认为政策能够立即降低试点城市的碳排放，但我们的研究结果表明，提高碳排放效率需要较长的时间;（2）第二产业比重和能源强度与碳排放效率负相关，而资本劳动比和科研投入与碳排放效率负相关;（3）东部试点城市的效果更好，可能进一步加深东西部城市分化;（4）对政策的作用机制进行了探讨。
The pilot scheme of low-carbon cities was first introduced in 2006 in China and now three rounds of over a hundred cities have been listed as pilots. There have been studies arguing that the policy has significantly reduced carbon emission in the pilot cities. However, with greater policy leverage and resource input, it is not difficult for the pilot cities to reduce their overall carbon emissions. The more important question is: Do the low-carbon cities reduce carbon emission efficiently considering various input and output indicators? Does the policy really make a difference by reducing carbon emission at the city level from a cost-effectiveness perspective? This research addresses the gap by introducing the Malmquist-Luenberger productivity index in DEA and the quasi-experimental method of Difference in Difference with Propensity Score Matching (PSM-DID) to evaluate the impacts of the low-carbon city pilot scheme in China. Beyond the results that the policy did improve the overall carbon emission efficiency of pilot cities, the article generates several intriguing findings: (1) Although existing researches argue that the policy helps reduce the carbon emission of pilot cities immediately, our findings suggest that it takes longer time to improve the carbon emission efficiency; (2) The proportion of secondary industry and energy intensity of the cities are negatively related to the carbon emission efficiency while capital-labor ratio and the investment in research work the other way around; (3) The policy might further deepen the urban divide between the eastern and western regions since it is more effective on eastern pilot cities; and (4) The mechanisms through which the policy takes effects have also been discussed.