ArticleHeliyon2024
Political incentives in market-based environmental regulation: Evidence from China's carbon emissions trading scheme.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper used a multi-period DID model with panel data from 283 Chinese cities between 2006 and 2019 to investigate the emission reduction effects and mechanisms of China's carbon trading scheme. The research revealed that China's Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme not only stimulated businesses to reduce emissions as a market-based environmental regulation policy but also influenced local governments' governance objectives. As a result, the Hawthorne effect inevitably manifested during the experimental period of China's Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme. Further analysis indicated that China's CETS encouraged local authorities to take a more proactive stance towards the balance between environmental preservation and economic growth, aiming to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. Based on the political stance of local governments, they are likely to simultaneously increase their focus on both economic growth and environmental protection. However, when faced with the conflict between economic advancement and environmental safeguarding, pilot regions prioritized ecological conservation in their practical steps, leading to a modest decline in economic growth. In other words, the government's high-profile announcements may not always manifest in actual deeds. In practice, local authorities tend to allocate more administrative resources to areas highly prioritized by the central government. Furthermore, the extended analysis reveals that China's CETS has resulted in a reduction in social welfare due to a shift in governance priorities influenced by political incentives. Therefore, fine-tuning the performance evaluation mechanism, preventing any bias towards the target preferences of local authorities, and guaranteeing the successful operation of the market mechanism are imperative to achieve truly low-cost and sustainable emissions reductions objectives for CETS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.