File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Navigating Sustainability Through Environmental Regulations: Assessing the Effects of Command-and-Control and Market-Incentive Policies on Carbon Emissions in China

TitleNavigating Sustainability Through Environmental Regulations: Assessing the Effects of Command-and-Control and Market-Incentive Policies on Carbon Emissions in China
Authors
Keywordscarbon emissions
command-and-control type
difference-in-difference (DID) design
energy consumption intensity
environmental regulations
industrial structure upgrading
market-incentive type
Issue Date14-Mar-2025
PublisherMDPI
Citation
Sustainability, 2025, v. 17, n. 6 How to Cite?
Abstract

Environmental regulations of various types are pivotal in shaping resource allocation and subsequently influencing the efficiency of carbon reduction initiatives. Taking China as an example, this study rigorously examines the effectiveness of command-and-control regulations alongside market-based incentives in mitigating carbon emissions, focusing on the mechanisms at play and the heterogeneous effects that emerge across diverse geographical and market contexts. Employing a quasi-natural experimental framework with a difference-in-differences (DID) model, the empirical analysis leverages data samples spanning from 2006 to 2019 in China. The findings indicate that regulatory frameworks effectively reduce carbon emissions with coefficients −0.110 and −0.160, and market-incentive regulations exhibit a more substantial impact (−0.160). Significantly, energy consumption intensity emerges as a mediator that establishes a causal pathway linking reduced energy use to decreased carbon emissions specifically within the context of market-incentive regulations. Conversely, command-and-control regulations may inadvertently lead to increased electricity consumption with coefficient 0.2044, suggesting a potential trade-off regarding their long-term efficacy. Furthermore, this research unveils a negative mediating effect associated with industrial structure upgrading, denoted by 6.2355 and 1.4874, indicative of a “masking effect” where regulatory pressures prompt superficial enhancements that fail to genuinely mitigate carbon emissions. The empirical findings also underscore regional disparities influenced by differing levels of economic development and degrees of marketization. This study enriches the existing literature on environmental regulation and carbon emissions reduction, providing valuable theoretical insights and practical implications for policymakers committed to promoting sustainability practices and achieving improved environmental outcomes in developing countries around the world.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357426
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 3.3
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.672
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJi, Kaiyuan-
dc.contributor.authorKong, Xiangya-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Chun-Kai-
dc.contributor.authorShum, Kwok-Leung-
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-23T08:55:14Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-23T08:55:14Z-
dc.date.issued2025-03-14-
dc.identifier.citationSustainability, 2025, v. 17, n. 6-
dc.identifier.issn2071-1050-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357426-
dc.description.abstract<p>Environmental regulations of various types are pivotal in shaping resource allocation and subsequently influencing the efficiency of carbon reduction initiatives. Taking China as an example, this study rigorously examines the effectiveness of command-and-control regulations alongside market-based incentives in mitigating carbon emissions, focusing on the mechanisms at play and the heterogeneous effects that emerge across diverse geographical and market contexts. Employing a quasi-natural experimental framework with a difference-in-differences (DID) model, the empirical analysis leverages data samples spanning from 2006 to 2019 in China. The findings indicate that regulatory frameworks effectively reduce carbon emissions with coefficients −0.110 and −0.160, and market-incentive regulations exhibit a more substantial impact (−0.160). Significantly, energy consumption intensity emerges as a mediator that establishes a causal pathway linking reduced energy use to decreased carbon emissions specifically within the context of market-incentive regulations. Conversely, command-and-control regulations may inadvertently lead to increased electricity consumption with coefficient 0.2044, suggesting a potential trade-off regarding their long-term efficacy. Furthermore, this research unveils a negative mediating effect associated with industrial structure upgrading, denoted by 6.2355 and 1.4874, indicative of a “masking effect” where regulatory pressures prompt superficial enhancements that fail to genuinely mitigate carbon emissions. The empirical findings also underscore regional disparities influenced by differing levels of economic development and degrees of marketization. This study enriches the existing literature on environmental regulation and carbon emissions reduction, providing valuable theoretical insights and practical implications for policymakers committed to promoting sustainability practices and achieving improved environmental outcomes in developing countries around the world.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherMDPI-
dc.relation.ispartofSustainability-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectcarbon emissions-
dc.subjectcommand-and-control type-
dc.subjectdifference-in-difference (DID) design-
dc.subjectenergy consumption intensity-
dc.subjectenvironmental regulations-
dc.subjectindustrial structure upgrading-
dc.subjectmarket-incentive type-
dc.titleNavigating Sustainability Through Environmental Regulations: Assessing the Effects of Command-and-Control and Market-Incentive Policies on Carbon Emissions in China-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/su17062559-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-105000916984-
dc.identifier.volume17-
dc.identifier.issue6-
dc.identifier.eissn2071-1050-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:001453886500001-
dc.identifier.issnl2071-1050-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats