资源科学 ›› 2019, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (6): 1024-1034.doi: 10.18402/resci.2019.06.02

• 资源经济 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于CGE模型的中国煤炭产能政策优化

贺玲(), 崔琦, 陈浩(), 宋涛   

  1. 北京师范大学经济与资源管理研究院 城市绿色发展科技战略研究北京市重点实验室,北京100875
  • 收稿日期:2019-01-21 修回日期:2019-02-27 出版日期:2019-06-25 发布日期:2019-06-25
  • 作者简介:

    作者简介:贺玲,女,河北定州人,博士研究生,研究方向为能源经济学。E-mail:bjheling@foxmail.com

  • 基金资助:
    国家发展改革委员会课题(221100055);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目(2018NTSS14);北京师范大学城市绿色发展科技战略研究北京市重点实验室资助项目

Policy optimization of coal production capacity in China based on a computable general equilibrium model

Ling HE(), Qi CUI, Hao CHEN(), Tao SONG   

  1. Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Green Development Science and Technology Strategy Research, Institute of Economics and Resource Management, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
  • Received:2019-01-21 Revised:2019-02-27 Online:2019-06-25 Published:2019-06-25

摘要:

本文基于CHINAGEM模型构建了中国能源经济均衡模型(CGE),建立差异化的多情景政策分析,比较了不同煤炭产能政策及其组合对中国宏观经济和产业部门的影响。研究结果表明:①煤炭产能政策在优化煤炭生产结构的同时,会显著影响其他能源产业和与之有上下游关联的非能源产业产出,不可避免地对宏观经济造成一定的冲击。②降产量政策对煤炭产业结构调整的作用最有效,但对宏观经济的冲击也最大;税收政策对宏观经济的冲击最小,但对煤炭产业结构调整的作用最弱;去产能政策对煤炭产业结构与宏观经济的影响介于降产量政策和税收政策之间。③在实施煤炭产能政策的同时,综合利用税收优惠、产能置换、技术进步等综合政策手段有助于推进煤炭生产结构调整,减缓其对宏观经济的负面影响,最终实现煤炭行业长效发展。本文采用冲击资本投入的方式模拟产能政策的结果更合理,更符合煤炭去产能的经济学含义,该方法同样适用于钢铁、玻璃、水泥等产业去产能的研究。

关键词: 产能政策, 宏观经济影响, 产业影响, 能源经济均衡(CGE)模型, 多情景分析, 煤炭, 中国

Abstract:

Based on CHINAGEM, a MONASH-style dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, this study constructed China’s energy economic equilibrium model, conducted a differentiated multi-scenario policy analysis, and compared the impacts of different coal productivity policies and their portfolio on China’s macro economy and industries. The results show that, while optimizing coal production structure, the coal productivity policy significantly affects the output of other energy industries and non-energy industries with upstream and downstream linkages, and inevitably has a certain impact on the macro economy. Among the coal production capability policies, reducing non-quality coal production is most effective in optimizing coal production structure, but it has the greatest negative impacts on macro economy. While taxation policy would have a slightly negative impact on macro economy in that national GDP falls by 0.06%, it has the weakest effect in improving coal production structure. The impacts of reducing production capacity fall between the above two policies. In implementing coal production capacity policies, several policies including tax incentives, production capability replacement, and technological advancement would simultaneously improve coal production structure and dampen the negative impacts on macro economy, and ultimately achieve long-term development of the coal industry. It is more reasonable to simulate the capacity policy by means of reducing capital input, which is more in line with the economic meaning of coal deactivation. This method is also applicable to the research of steel, glass, cement, and other industries.

Key words: production capacity policy, macroeconomic impacts, industrial impacts, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, multi-scenario analysis, coal, China