外商直接投资的污染避难所效应会一直存在吗?——基于动态门限面板模型的实证分析
|
摘要
文章基于"污染避难所"与"污染光环"两种对立假说,分别构建了外商直接投资与工业废水、二氧化硫、固体废弃物排放量的动态面板模型对两种假说进行检验。结果表明,外商直接投资显著促进了三种污染物排放量的上升。从人口城市化、经济城市化、生活环境城市化、生活条件城市化四个维度构建城市化水平评价体系,并运用熵值法对城市化水平进行测算,采用动态门限面板模型研究了不同城市化水平条件下外商直接投资与环境污染之间的非线性关系。结果发现,外商直接投资的污染避难所效应会随城市化水平的上升而减弱;从东、中、西三大区域对污染避难所效应进一步探讨,结果表明东部地区不存在污染避难所效应,中、西部地区总体上污染避难所效应明显。
Based on the two opposite hypotheses of "pollution shelter" and "pollution halo", the paper constructs a dynamic panel model of foreign direct investment and industrial wastewater, sulfur dioxide and solid waste emissions to test the two hypotheses. The results show that foreign direct investment has significantly promoted the increase of emissions of three pollutants. From the four dimensions of population urbanization, economic urbanization, living environment urbanization and living conditions urbanization, the urbanization evaluation system is constructed, and the entropy method is used to measure the urbanization. The dynamic threshold panel model is used to study the nonlinear relationship between foreign direct investment and environmental pollution under the different urbanization. The results show that the pollution shelter effect of foreign direct investment will be weakened with the increase of urbanization level; from the east, middle and west regions, the effects of pollution shelters will be further explored. We can find that there is no pollution shelter effect in the eastern region.In general, the effect of pollution shelters in the western region is obvious.
Based on the two opposite hypotheses of "pollution shelter" and "pollution halo", the paper constructs a dynamic panel model of foreign direct investment and industrial wastewater, sulfur dioxide and solid waste emissions to test the two hypotheses. The results show that foreign direct investment has significantly promoted the increase of emissions of three pollutants. From the four dimensions of population urbanization, economic urbanization, living environment urbanization and living conditions urbanization, the urbanization evaluation system is constructed, and the entropy method is used to measure the urbanization. The dynamic threshold panel model is used to study the nonlinear relationship between foreign direct investment and environmental pollution under the different urbanization. The results show that the pollution shelter effect of foreign direct investment will be weakened with the increase of urbanization level; from the east, middle and west regions, the effects of pollution shelters will be further explored. We can find that there is no pollution shelter effect in the eastern region.In general, the effect of pollution shelters in the western region is obvious.
引文
[1]Dean J M,Lovely M E,Wang H.Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations?Evaluating the evidence from China[J].Journal of Development Economics,2005,90(1):1-13.
[2]宋德勇,易艳春.外商直接投资与中国碳排放[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011(1):49-52.
[3]Letchumanan R,Kodama F.Reconciling the conflict between the‘pollution-haven’hypothesis and an emerging trajectory of international technology transfer[J].Research Policy,200029(1):59-79.
[4]李小平,卢现祥.国际贸易、污染产业转移和中国工业CO2排放[J].经济研究,2010(1):15-26.
[5]Mulatu A,Gerlagh R,Dan R,et al.Environmental regulation and industry location in Europe[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2010,45(4):459-479.
[6]傅帅雄,张可云,张文彬.环境规制与中国工业区域布局的“污染天堂”效应[J].山西财经大学学报,2011(7):8-14.
[7]Azman-Saini W N W,Law S H,Ahmad A H.FDI and economic growth:New evidence on the role of financial markets[J]Economics Letters,2010,107(2):211-213.
[8]Xia J W,Ortiz J,Wang H B.Reverse technology spillover effects of outward FDI to P.R.China:A threshold regression analysis[J].Applied Economics Quarterly,2016,62(1):51-67.
[9]李梅,柳士昌.对外直接投资逆向技术溢出的地区差异和门槛效应--基于中国省际面板数据的门槛回归分析[J].管理世界,2012(1):21-32.
[10]姬晓辉,汪健莹.基于面板门槛模型的环境规制对区域生态效率溢出效应研究[J].科技管理研究,2016(3):246-251.
[11]李子豪,刘辉煌.外商直接投资、地区腐败与环境污染--基于门槛效应的实证研究[J].国际贸易问题,2013(7):50-61.
[12]罗军,陈建国.FDI、人力资本门槛与就业--基于门槛效应的检验[J].世界经济研究,2014(7):74-79.
[13]许文彬,叶文霞.FDI、经济增长与金融发展双门槛效应--基于中国1992-2012年省际面板数据[J].数理统计与管理,2016(6):972-983.
[14]牛泽东,张倩肖.FDI创新溢出与门槛效应--基于非线性面板平滑转换回归模型的分析[J].产业经济研究,2011(6):53-62.
[15]Walter I,Ugelow J L.Environmental policies in developing countries[J].Ambio,1979,8(2/3):102-109.
[16]彭可茂,席利卿,雷玉桃.中国工业的污染避难所区域效应--基于2002-2012年工业总体与特定产业的测度与验证[J].中国工业经济,2013(10):44-56.
[17]杨子晖,田磊.“污染天堂”假说与影响因素的中国省际研究[J].世界经济,2017(5):148-172.
[18]Cole M A,Fredriksson P G.Institutionalized pollution havens[J]Ecological Economics,2009,68(4):1239-1256.
[19]Shofwan S,Fong M.Foreign direct investment and the pollution haven hypothesis in Indonesia[J].International Journal of Business Research,2012:12(4):127-133.
[20]郭沛,蒋庚华,张曙霄.外商直接投资对中国碳排放量的影响--基于省际面板数据的实证研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2013(1):47-52.
[21]白俊红,吕晓红.FDI质量与中国环境污染的改善[J].国际贸易问题,2015(8):72-83.
[22]Grossman G M,Krueger A B.Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,1991,8(2):223-250.
[23]Dang V A,Kim M,Shin Y.Asymmetric capital structure adjustments:New evidence from dynamic panel threshold models[J].Journal of Empirical Finance,2012,19(4):465-482.
[24]余长林,高宏建.环境管制对中国环境污染的影响--基于隐性经济的视角[J].中国工业经济,2015(7):21-35.
[25]李长亮.我国城市化水平测算方法的科学性研究[J].经济纵横,2013(2):65-70.
[26]王富喜,毛爱华,李赫龙,等.基于熵值法的山东省城镇化质量测度及空间差异分析[J].地理科学,2013(11):1323-1329.
[2]宋德勇,易艳春.外商直接投资与中国碳排放[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011(1):49-52.
[3]Letchumanan R,Kodama F.Reconciling the conflict between the‘pollution-haven’hypothesis and an emerging trajectory of international technology transfer[J].Research Policy,200029(1):59-79.
[4]李小平,卢现祥.国际贸易、污染产业转移和中国工业CO2排放[J].经济研究,2010(1):15-26.
[5]Mulatu A,Gerlagh R,Dan R,et al.Environmental regulation and industry location in Europe[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2010,45(4):459-479.
[6]傅帅雄,张可云,张文彬.环境规制与中国工业区域布局的“污染天堂”效应[J].山西财经大学学报,2011(7):8-14.
[7]Azman-Saini W N W,Law S H,Ahmad A H.FDI and economic growth:New evidence on the role of financial markets[J]Economics Letters,2010,107(2):211-213.
[8]Xia J W,Ortiz J,Wang H B.Reverse technology spillover effects of outward FDI to P.R.China:A threshold regression analysis[J].Applied Economics Quarterly,2016,62(1):51-67.
[9]李梅,柳士昌.对外直接投资逆向技术溢出的地区差异和门槛效应--基于中国省际面板数据的门槛回归分析[J].管理世界,2012(1):21-32.
[10]姬晓辉,汪健莹.基于面板门槛模型的环境规制对区域生态效率溢出效应研究[J].科技管理研究,2016(3):246-251.
[11]李子豪,刘辉煌.外商直接投资、地区腐败与环境污染--基于门槛效应的实证研究[J].国际贸易问题,2013(7):50-61.
[12]罗军,陈建国.FDI、人力资本门槛与就业--基于门槛效应的检验[J].世界经济研究,2014(7):74-79.
[13]许文彬,叶文霞.FDI、经济增长与金融发展双门槛效应--基于中国1992-2012年省际面板数据[J].数理统计与管理,2016(6):972-983.
[14]牛泽东,张倩肖.FDI创新溢出与门槛效应--基于非线性面板平滑转换回归模型的分析[J].产业经济研究,2011(6):53-62.
[15]Walter I,Ugelow J L.Environmental policies in developing countries[J].Ambio,1979,8(2/3):102-109.
[16]彭可茂,席利卿,雷玉桃.中国工业的污染避难所区域效应--基于2002-2012年工业总体与特定产业的测度与验证[J].中国工业经济,2013(10):44-56.
[17]杨子晖,田磊.“污染天堂”假说与影响因素的中国省际研究[J].世界经济,2017(5):148-172.
[18]Cole M A,Fredriksson P G.Institutionalized pollution havens[J]Ecological Economics,2009,68(4):1239-1256.
[19]Shofwan S,Fong M.Foreign direct investment and the pollution haven hypothesis in Indonesia[J].International Journal of Business Research,2012:12(4):127-133.
[20]郭沛,蒋庚华,张曙霄.外商直接投资对中国碳排放量的影响--基于省际面板数据的实证研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2013(1):47-52.
[21]白俊红,吕晓红.FDI质量与中国环境污染的改善[J].国际贸易问题,2015(8):72-83.
[22]Grossman G M,Krueger A B.Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,1991,8(2):223-250.
[23]Dang V A,Kim M,Shin Y.Asymmetric capital structure adjustments:New evidence from dynamic panel threshold models[J].Journal of Empirical Finance,2012,19(4):465-482.
[24]余长林,高宏建.环境管制对中国环境污染的影响--基于隐性经济的视角[J].中国工业经济,2015(7):21-35.
[25]李长亮.我国城市化水平测算方法的科学性研究[J].经济纵横,2013(2):65-70.
[26]王富喜,毛爱华,李赫龙,等.基于熵值法的山东省城镇化质量测度及空间差异分析[J].地理科学,2013(11):1323-1329.