政府推动型城镇化对企业污染排放的影响研究

The Impact of Government Driven Urbanization on Enterprise Pollution Emission

中文关键词:  政府推动型城镇化  企业污染排放  撤县设区

英文关键词:government driven urbanization  enterprise pollution emission  county-to-district

中文摘要:

      现阶段，资源过度消耗与环境恶化成为中国经济与社会可持续发展的障碍。虽然现有研究从多方面探究了环境污染的治理机制，但对政府推动型城镇化这一重要的宏观政策的关注不足。本文以中国工业企业为研究样本，利用撤县设区改革的准自然实验构建双重差分模型，考察政府推动型城镇化对企业污染排放的影响。实证结果显示，撤县设区改革显著地减少了原县辖区内企业的污染排放量，即政府推动型城镇化对企业污染排放具有“治理效应”。异质性分析发现，撤县设区改革对企业污染排放的“治理效应”来源于主动推动型撤县设区而非被动实施型撤县设区；相比于在非重污染行业的企业以及隶属于县级以上的企业中，撤县设区改革对企业污染排放的“治理效应”在重污染行业的企业以及隶属于县级以下的企业中更强。影响机制分析发现，撤县设区改革后，原县级政府的财政收入显著下降、基础建设性财政支出显著减少而民生性财政支出显著增加，说明撤县设区后，原县级政府财政收入的经济激励弱化，财政支出目标亦从基础设施建设转变为提供公共服务，从而有助于治理企业污染排放问题。

英文摘要:

      Currently, excessive resource consumption and environmental degradation have become obstacles to China’s sustainable economic and social development. Although the existing research has explored the governance mechanism of environmental pollution from many aspects, there is insufficient attention to the important macro policy of government driven urbanization. This paper examines the impact of government driven urbanization on enterprise pollution emissions by taking the panel data of China’s industrial enterprises as the research sample, and employing the quasi-natural experiment of county-to-district reform to construct a differencein-difference model. The empirical results show that government driven urbanization reduces enterprise pollution emissions, that is, government driven urbanization has “governance effect” on enterprise pollution emissions. Heterogeneity analyses show that the “governance effect” of the “county-to-district” on enterprise pollution emissions comes from the actively promoted “county-to-district” reform rather than the passively being promoted one. Compared with the non-heavy polluting industries and enterprises belonging to the above county level, the “governance effect” of the county-to-district reform on enterprise pollution emission for the heavy polluting industries and enterprises belonging to the below county level is stronger. Mechanism tests show that county-to-district reform reduces the counties’ fiscal revenue and expenditure productive infrastructure, but increases expenditure on the people’s wellbeing, which indicates that the counties’ economic incentives after the county-to-district reforms is weakened and the fiscal expenditure goal have also changed from infrastructure construction to public services. It helps to control the pollution emission of enterprises.