Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T23:00:13.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Porter hypothesis hold in China? evidence from the “2+26” regional air pollution treatment policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2024

Weijie Luo Open the ORCID record for Weijie Luo [Opens in a new window] ,
Di Xiang  and
Xiaoming Zhang
Weijie Luo
Affiliation:
School of Economics, Beijing International Studies University, Beijing, P.R. China
Di Xiang*
Affiliation:
Economics Department, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, P.R. China
Xiaoming Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Public Policy & Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, P.R. China
*
*Corresponding author: Di Xiang; E-mail: b2021103021@ucass.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analyzed the impact of environmental regulation, specifically the “2+26” regional strategy for air quality improvement, on corporate research and development (R&D) investment in China. We developed a theoretical model based on the argument that R&D investment rises with regulation intensity. Using 2010–2019 data from China's listed companies located in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and its surrounding areas, we treated the $2+26$ policy as a quasi-natural experiment and adopted a difference-in-differences approach to explore its effect on firm R&D input. A positive association was observed between firm R&D intensity and the $2+26$ strategy's implementation in major polluting industries. Our results provide in-depth insights into the $2+26$ strategy's economic consequences, which are potentially of interest to both scholars and policymakers.

Keywords

air quality improvementporter hypothesisresearch and development investment“2 + 26” regional strategy

JEL classification

L51: Economics of Regulation O30: General Q53: Air Pollution • Water Pollution • Noise • Hazardous Waste • Solid Waste • Recycling
Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , August 2024 , pp. 319 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ambec, S, Cohen, MA, Elgie, S and Lanoie, P (2013) The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 7, 2–22.10.1093/reep/res016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbera, AJ and McConnell, VD (1990) The impact of environmental regulations on industry productivity: direct and indirect effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 50–65.10.1016/0095-0696(90)90051-YCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brännlund, R and Lundgren, T (2009) Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter hypothesis. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 3, 75–117.10.1561/101.00000020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunnermeier, SB and Cohen, MA (2003) Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, 278–293.10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00058-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakraborty, P and Chatterjee, C (2017) Does environmental regulation indirectly induce upstream innovation? New evidence from India. Research Policy 46, 939–955.10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z, Xu, B, Cai, J and Gao, B (2016) Understanding temporal patterns and characteristics of air quality in Beijing: a local and regional perspective. Atmospheric Environment 127, 303–315.10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, N, Zhang, D, Li, Y, Xie, X, Chen, Z, Meng, F, Gao, B and He, B (2017) Spatio-temporal variations of PM 2.5 concentrations and the evaluation of emission reduction measures during two red air pollution alerts in Beijing. Scientific Reports 7, 1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Feng, X, Luo, W and Wang, Y (2023) Economic policy uncertainty and firm performance: evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 28, 1476–1493.10.1080/13547860.2021.1962643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, P and Casimiro, E (2011) Short-term effect of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and ozone on daily mortality in Lisbon, Portugal. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 18, 1585–1592.10.1007/s11356-011-0519-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, WB and Shadbegian, RJ (1993) Environmental regulation and manufacturing productivity at the plant level. NBER working paper No. w4321.10.3386/w4321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, WB and Shadbegian, RJ (2003) Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46, 384–402.10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00031-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guaita, R, Pichiule, M, Maté, T, Linares, C and Díaz, J (2011) Short-term impact of particulate matter (PM2. 5) on respiratory mortality in Madrid. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 21, 260–274.10.1080/09603123.2010.544033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, S, Hu, M, Guo, Q, Zhang, X, Zheng, M, Zheng, J, Chang, CC, James, JS and Zhang, R (2012) Primary sources and secondary formation of organic aerosols in Beijing, China. Environmental Science & Technology 46, 9846–9853.10.1021/es2042564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamamoto, M (2006) Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries. Resource and Energy Economics 28, 299–312.10.1016/j.reseneeco.2005.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, JJ and Tian, X (2013) The dark side of analyst coverage: the case of innovation. Journal of Financial Economics 109, 856–878.10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J, Zhao, J and Cao, J (2021) Environmental regulation and corporate R&D investment evidence from a quasi-natural experiment. International Review of Economics & Finance 72, 154–174.10.1016/j.iref.2020.11.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, AB and Palmer, K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics 79, 610–619.10.1162/003465397557196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneller, R and Manderson, E (2012) Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries. Resource and Energy Economics 34, 211–235.10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanoie, P, Laurent-Lucchetti, J, Johnstone, N and Ambec, S (2011) Environmental policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 20, 803–842.Google Scholar
Li, Y, Ma, Z, Zheng, C and Shang, Y (2015) Ambient temperature enhanced acute cardiovascular-respiratory mortality effects of PM 2.5 in Beijing, China. International Journal of Biometeorology 59, 1761–1770.10.1007/s00484-015-0984-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, W (2024) Business experience and local government size: evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 29, 19–37.10.1080/13547860.2021.1992092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, W and Qin, S (2021) China's local political turnover in the twenty-first century. Journal of Chinese Political Science 26, 651–674.10.1007/s11366-021-09739-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, W and Zhang, X (2022) Political turnover and corporate research and development: evidence from China. Applied Economics Letters 29, 573–578.10.1080/13504851.2020.1813242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, W, Wang, Y and Zhang, X (2022) Monetary policy uncertainty and firm risk-taking. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 71, 101695.10.1016/j.pacfin.2021.101695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, RD (2002) Technical change, external economies, and the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 158–168.10.1006/jeem.2000.1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascal, M, Falq, G, Wagner, V, Chatignoux, E, Corso, M, Blanchard, M, Host, S, Pascal, L and Larrieu, S (2014) Short-term impacts of particulate matter (PM10, PM10-2.5, PM2.5) on mortality in nine French cities. Atmospheric Environment 95, 175–184.10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, ME and van der Linde, C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 97–118.10.1257/jep.9.4.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, S, Luo, W and Wang, Y (2022) Policy uncertainty and firm-level investment: evidence from public-private partnership market in China. Applied Economics Letters 29, 669–675.10.1080/13504851.2021.1883524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubashkina, Y, Galeotti, M and Verdolini, E (2015) Environmental regulation and competitiveness: empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy 83, 288–300.10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, W, Wang, Y and Luo, W (2021) Does the Porter hypothesis hold in China? Evidence from the low-carbon city pilot policy. Journal of Applied Economics 24, 246–269.10.1080/15140326.2020.1858224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, CH, Tseng, YH and Chen, CP (2012) Environmental regulations, induced R&D, and productivity: evidence from Taiwan's manufacturing industries. Resource and Energy Economics 34, 514–532.10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, B and Xiang, Q (2018) Environmental regulation, industrial innovation and green development of Chinese manufacturing: based on an extended CDM model. Journal of Cleaner Production 176, 895–908.10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, C, Lu, Y, Guo, L and Yu, T (2011) The intensity of environmental regulation and technological progress of production. Economic Research Journal 2, 3–124.Google Scholar
Zhang, X, Luo, W and Zhu, J (2021) Top-down and bottom-up lockdown: evidence from COVID-19 prevention and control in China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 26, 189–211.10.1007/s11366-020-09711-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X, Luo, W and Xiang, D (2023) Political turnover and innovation: evidence from China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 28, 401–425.10.1007/s11366-022-09800-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar