资源科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (7): 1348-1360.doi: 10.18402/resci.2020.07.11

• 资源经济 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同环境规制政策对中国规模以上工业企业技术创新的影响

熊航(), 静峥, 展进涛()   

  1. 南京农业大学,南京 210095
  • 收稿日期:2019-12-09 修回日期:2020-05-14 出版日期:2020-07-25 发布日期:2020-09-25
  • 通讯作者: 展进涛
  • 作者简介:熊航,女,安徽舒城人,讲师,博士,研究方向为环境经济学、发展经济学。E-mail: xionghang@njau.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    南京农业大学中央高校基本科研业务费人文社科基金项目(SKCX2017003)

Impact of different environmental regulatory tools on technological innovation of Chinese industrial enterprises above designated size

XIONG Hang(), JING Zheng, ZHAN Jintao()   

  1. Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
  • Received:2019-12-09 Revised:2020-05-14 Online:2020-07-25 Published:2020-09-25
  • Contact: ZHAN Jintao

摘要:

考察不同环境规制工具对中国企业技术创新及路径选择的影响,有利于中国实施高效的环境规制政策。本文使用2013—2017年中国30个省规模以上工业企业的面板数据,将企业技术创新分为内部自主研发和外部引进,探究市场激励型和命令控制型两类环境规制政策对工业企业技术创新的影响。结果表明:①两类环境规制工具对企业技术创新均发挥了不同程度的促进作用,且呈现出一定的结构和时序特征,部分验证了波特假说“弱”版本。具体如下:命令控制型工具在2016年新一轮“环保风暴”后对企业创新行为具有显著的促进作用;市场激励型工具对企业创新行为具有显著促进作用,但呈现作用随年递减的趋势;相较于企业技术引进而言,两类环境规制工具对企业自主研发的激励效果更大;在市场激励型工具中,碳交易市场对工业企业技术创新发挥了促进作用,且主要体现在外部引进方面。②分地区而言,东部和中部地区的结果与全国的结果呈现出相对的一致性;西部的结果符合波特假说“狭义”版本,即市场激励型环境政策工具比命令控制型环境规制对西部工业企业的创新激励更大。本文创新性地在环境规制中引入了可再生能源发电补贴和碳排放交易制度,细化了波特假说的内在作用机制,为国家进一步优化环境政策体系进而激励工业企业技术创新提供了科学依据。

关键词: 环境规制工具, 波特假说, 创新途径, 碳排放交易计划(ETS), 命令控制型, 市场激励型, 环保风暴

Abstract:

Exploring the impact of different environmental regulatory tools on technological innovation and path selection of enterprises is of great significance for China. Based on the panel data of industrial enterprises above the designated scale in 30 provinces from 2013 to 2017, this study divided technological innovation into internal independent R&D and external introduction, and used fixed effect regression to examine the impact of different environmental regulatory tools on technological innovation of industrial enterprises. The results show that: The two types of environmental regulatory tools have played different roles in promoting the expenditure on R&D, and showed a trend of change over time, which partly verifies the “weak” version of porter’s hypothesis. From 2013 to 2015, command-and-control tools did not play a significant role in promoting the R&D expenditure, but they did play a significant role in promoting the R&D expenditure under the impetus of a new round of “environmental protection storm” in 2016 to 2017. Since 2013, market incentives had significantly promoted the internal expenditure, external introduction, and total expenditure on R&D, and the impact showed a decreasing trend. Meanwhile, their promoting effect on the internal expenditure on R&D was greater than that on the external expenditure. Carbon trading market had played a promoting role in the R&D of industrial enterprises, which is mainly reflected in the external introduction. Spatially, the results of the eastern and central regions are relatively consistent and robust with the results of the whole country. The results in western China are consistent with the “narrow” version of porter’s hypothesis. It was found that market-driven environmental policy tools had more innovative incentives for industrial enterprises in western China than command-and-control environmental regulations. This study innovatively introduces renewable energy generation subsidies and carbon trading market into the environmental regulation. In refining the mechanism of Porter hypothesis, it provides a scientific basis for the state to further optimize the environmental policy system in order to stimulate the technological innovation of industrial enterprises.

Key words: environmental regulatory tools, Porter’s hypothesis, innovative approach, emissions trading scheme (ETS), command-and-control tools, market incentives, environmental protection storm