Did Haze Pollution Harm the Quality of Economic Development?—An Empirical Study Based on China’s PM2.5 Concentrations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Formulation
2.1. Air Pollution and Loss of Labor Supply
2.2. Air Pollution and Counter Urbanization
2.3. Air Pollution and Human Capital Disruption
3. Model Building and Indicator Selection
3.1. Dependent Variable
3.2. Core Explanatory Variable
3.3. Control Variables
4. Analyses of Empirical Results
4.1. Benchmark Regression
4.2. Analysis of Transmission Mechanisms
4.3. Robustness Analysis
4.4. Heterogeneity Analysis
5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shafik, N. Economic development and environmental quality: An econometric analysis. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 1994, 46, 757–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedl, B.; Getiner, M. Determinants of CO2, emissions in a small open economy. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 45, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebenstein, A.; Fan, M.; Greenstore, M.; He, G.; Yin, P.; Zhou, M. Growth, pollution and life expectancy: China from 1991–2012. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015, 105, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ouyanga, X.; Shao, Q.; Zhu, X.; Hea, Q.; Xianga, C.; Weia, G. Environmental regulation, economic growth and air pollution: Panel threshold analysis for OECD countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 657, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Su, Y.; Lu, C.; Lin, X.; Zhong, L.; Gao, Y.; Lei, Y. Analysis of Spatio-temporal Characteristics and Driving Forces of Air Quality in the Northern Coastal Comprehensive Economic Zone, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lopez, R. The environment as a factor of production: The effects of economic growth and trade liberalization. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 27, 163–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannadaki, D.; Giannakis, E.; Pozzer, A.; Lelieveld, J. Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622–623, 1304–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kampa, M.; Castanas, E. Human Health Effects of Air Pollution. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 151, 362–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, Y. Rapid health transition in China, 1990–2010: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013, 381, 1987–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Y.; Peng, H.; Temulun, T.; Liu, L.; Mao, J.; Lu, Z.; Chen, H. How harmful is air pollution to economic development? New evidence from PM2.5 concentrations of Chinese cities. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 172, 743–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Guo, Y. The effects of haze pollution on stock performances: Evidence from China. Appl. Econ. 2017, 49, 2226–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.C.; Wang, G.; Chen, R.; Liu, X.; Wei, G. Indirect Economic Impact Incurred by Haze Pollution: An Econometric and Input–Output Joint Model. Public Health 2019, 16, 2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hanlon, W.W. Coal Smoke and the Costs of the Industrial Revolution; NBER Working Paper No. 22921; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, M.A.; Elliott, R.J.; Okubo, T. Trade, Environmental Regulations and Industrial Mobility: An Industry-level Study of Japan. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1995–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knittel, C.R.; Millera, D.L.; Sanders, N.J. Caution, Drivers! Children Present: Traffic, Pollution and Infant Health. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2016, 98, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenneth, Y.; Chay, M.G. The Impact of Air Pollution on Infant Mortality: Evidence from Geographic Variation in Pollution Shocks Induced by a Recession. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118, 1121–1167. [Google Scholar]
- He, J.; Liu, H.; Salvo, A. Severe Air Pollution and Labor Productivity: Evidence from Industrial Towns in China. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2019, 11, 173–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deryugina, T.; Heutel, G.; Miller, N.H. The Mortality and Medical Costs of Air Pollution: Evidence from Changes in Wind Direction. Am. Econ. Rev. 2019, 109, 4178–4219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lua, X.; Lin, C.; Li, W.; Chen, Y.; Huang, Y.; Funga, J.; Lau, C.H.; Alexis, K.H. Analysis of the adverse health effects of PM2.5 from 2001 to 2017 in China and the role of urbanization in aggravating the health burden. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausman, J.A.; Ostro, B.D.; Wise, D.A. Air pollution and lost work. Natl. Bureau Econ. Res. 1984, 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rema, H.; Paulina, O. The effect of pollution on labor supply: Evidence from a natural experiment in Mexico City. J. Public Econ. 2015, 122, 68–79. [Google Scholar]
- Bosi, S.; Desmarchelier, D.; Ragot, L. Pollution effects on labor supply and growth. Int. J. Econ. Theory 2015, 11, 371–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carson, R.T.; Koundouri, P.; Nauges, C. Arsenic mitigation in Bangladesh: A Household Labor market approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 93, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, Y.; Manley, J.; Radoias, V. Medium and long-term consequences of pollution on labor supply: Evidence from Indonesia. J. Labor Econ. 2017, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, S.; Oliva, P.; Zhang, P. The Effect of Air Pollution on Migration: Evidence from China; NBER Working Paper No. 24036; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, Y.; Zhu, H. Run Away? Air Pollution and Emigration Interests in China. Popul. Econ. 2018, 31, 235–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahn, M.E. Smog Reduction’s Impact on California County Growth. J. Reg. Sci. 2000, 40, 565–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akpalu, W.; Ametefee, K.N. Gold Mining Pollution and the Cost of Private Healthcare: The Case of Ghana. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 142, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, S.H.; Viard, V.B.; Zhang, P. Air Pollution and Manufacturing Firm Productivity: Nationwide Estimates for China. 2017. Available online: http://www.ckgsb.com/uploads/pollution_and_productivity.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2020).
- Copeland, B.R.; Taylor, M.S. North-South Trade and the Environment. Q. J. Econ. 1994, 9, 755–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reppelin-Hill, V. Trade and Environment: An Empirical Analysis of the Technology Effect in the Steel Industry. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1999, 38, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Wu, S. Effects of local and civil environmental regulation on green total factor productivity in China: A spatial Durbin econometric analysis. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 153, 342–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, T.; Zheng, T.G.; Tong, L.J. An empirical test of the environmental Kuznets curve in China: A panel cointegration approach China. Am. Econ. Rev. 2008, 19, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tientao, A.; Legros, D.; Pichery, M.C. Technology spillover and TFP growth: A spatial Durbin model. J. Int. Econ. 2016, 145, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hering, L.; Poncet, S. Environmental Policy and Exports: Evidence from Chinese Cities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2014, 68, 296–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broner, F.; Bustos, P.; Carvalho, V. Sources of Comparative Advantage in Polluting Industries; NBER Working Paper No. 18337; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van, A.D.; Mar Tin, R.V.; Brauer, M. Use of satellite observations for long-term exposure assessment of global concentrations of fine particulate matter. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, M.A. Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berman, E.; Bui, L.T. Environmental Regulation and Productivity: Evidence from Oil Refineries. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2001, 83, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shadbegian, R.J.; Gray, W.B. What determines environmental performance at paper mills: The roles of abatement spending, regulation, and efficiency. E J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2003, 3, 1144–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable | Min | Max | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
TFP | 0.500 | 2.249 | 1.095 | 0.296 |
PM2.5 | 4.8 | 82.67 | 32.122 | 16.843 |
Density | 0.040 | 1.288 | 0.483 | 0.266 |
FDI | 0.008 | 0.263 | 0.483 | 0.266 |
Innov | 2.654 | 383.68 | 42.099 | 51.350 |
Indus | 0.240 | 2.022 | 1.203 | 0.337 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fixed Effect | 2SLS | |||||
TFP | TFP | TFP | PM2.5 Stage One | TFP Stage Two | TFP | |
PM2.5 | −0.006 ** | −0.005 ** | −0.005 ** | −0.050 *** | −0.545 | |
(−2.58) | (−2.28) | (−2.45) | (−2.61) | (−1.23) | ||
PM2.52 | 0.007 | |||||
(1.12) | ||||||
Rainfall | −1.974 ** | |||||
(−2.40) | ||||||
Density | −0.0401 | −0.0960 | −0.152 | −0.160 | ||
(−0.32) | (−0.77) | (−1.23) | (−1.29) | |||
FDI | −1.381 *** | −1.263 *** | −1.311 *** | −1.381 *** | ||
(−2.83) | (−2.63) | (−2.73) | (−2.85) | |||
Innov | 0.008 *** | 0.005 ** | 0.005 ** | 0.005 ** | ||
(3.67) | (2.52) | (2.56) | (2.43) | |||
Indus | −0.162 *** | −0.145 *** | −0.143 *** | |||
(−3.59) | (−3.20) | (−3.17) | ||||
_cons | 1.301 *** | 1.335 *** | 1.571 *** | 45.22 *** | 3.003 *** | 11.02 |
(16.19) | (13.47) | (13.36) | (8.28) | (4.81) | (1.53) | |
R2 | 0.0182 | 0.0752 | 0.1076 | 0.0158 | 0.1095 | 0.1126 |
N | 390 | 390 | 390 | 390 | 390 | 390 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TFP | TFP | Labor | TFP | TFP | Urban | TFP | TFP | Capital | |
Labor Supply Loss | Counter Urbanization | Human Capital Disruption | |||||||
PM2.5 | −0.005 *** | −0.028 * | −0.181 *** | ||||||
(−2.74) | (−1.66) | (−2.62) | |||||||
Labor | 2.534 *** | ||||||||
(5.14) | |||||||||
l.Labor | 2.854 *** | ||||||||
(5.76) | |||||||||
Urban | 0.433 *** | ||||||||
(7.83) | |||||||||
L.Urban | 0.381*** | ||||||||
(7.46) | |||||||||
Capital | 0.149 *** | ||||||||
(11.92) | |||||||||
l.Capital | 0.151 *** | ||||||||
(12.60) | |||||||||
Density | −0.211 * | −0.195 | 0.019 | −0.424 *** | −0.260 ** | 0.661 *** | −0.462 *** | −0.357 *** | 2.133 *** |
(−1.74) | (−1.63) | (1.57) | (−3.50) | (−2.22) | (5.98) | (−4.23) | (−3.43) | (4.80) | |
FDI | −0.940 ** | −0.875 * | −0.267 *** | −0.906 ** | −0.796 * | −0.906 ** | −0.179 | −0.174 | −7.539 *** |
(−1.99) | (−1.94) | (−5.05) | (−2.01) | (−1.82) | (−2.11) | (−0.43) | (−0.44) | (−4.38) | |
Innov | 0.003 | 0.004 * | 0.009 *** | 0.00351 * | 0.004 * | 0.006 *** | 0.001 | 0.0021 | 0.002 *** |
(1.51) | (1.80) | (4.27) | (1.65) | (1.86) | (3.01) | (0.88) | (1.09) | (3.55) | |
Indus | −0.098 ** | −0.071 | −0.020 *** | −0.095 ** | −0.113 *** | −0.137 *** | −0.0423 | 0.0141 | −0.728 *** |
(−2.17) | (−1.56) | (−4.48) | (−2.23) | (−2.68) | (−3.38) | (−1.07) | (0.36) | (−4.48) | |
_cons | 1.057 *** | 0.985 *** | 0.299 *** | 1.754 *** | 1.664 *** | 0.0817 | 0.00136 | −0.120 | 15.13 *** |
(9.50) | (8.71) | (4.66) | (17.93) | (18.38) | (0.15) | (0.01) | (−0.84) | (6.76) | |
F | 25.67 | 31.27 | 17.94 | ||||||
R2 | 0.2175 | 0.2248 | 0.2770 | 0.2261 | 0.2181 | 0.3520 | 0.3520 | 0.4029 | 0.2708 |
N | 390 | 360 | 390 | 390 | 360 | 390 | 390 | 360 | 390 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TFP | TFP | TFP | ln TFP | TFP | GDP | |
Lag Control Variable | Delete Municipality | Control SO2 | Absolute Value | Delete 0.5% | GDP as Explained Variable | |
PM2.5 | −0.068 *** | −0.054 *** | −0.047 *** | −0.059 *** | −0.598 *** | |
(−3.62) | (−2.67) | (−2.61) | (−2.61) | (−4.27) | ||
lnPM2.5 | −1.499 ** | |||||
(−2.51) | ||||||
Density | 0.028 | −0.240 * | −0.247 ** | −0.094 | −0.152 | 5.668 *** |
(0.22) | (−1.82) | (−2.03) | (−0.90) | (−1.23) | (6.30) | |
FDI | −1.564 *** | −1.698 *** | −1.077 ** | −1.049 ** | −1.311 *** | −18.89 *** |
(−3.31) | (−3.10) | (−2.39) | (−2.58) | (−2.73) | (−5.41) | |
Innov | 0.004 ** | 0.004 * | 0.003 | 0.005 *** | 0.005 ** | 0.010 *** |
(2.14) | (1.71) | (1.65) | (2.65) | (2.56) | (6.30) | |
Indus | −0.061 | −0.152 *** | −0.103 ** | −0.111 *** | −0.145 *** | −2.173 *** |
(−1.25) | (−3.16) | (−2.31) | (−2.90) | (−3.20) | (−6.61) | |
L.x16 | −0.003 *** | |||||
(−4.47) | ||||||
_cons | 3.419 *** | 3.223 *** | 3.164 *** | 5.222 *** | 3.293 *** | 23.16 *** |
(5.58) | (4.84) | (5.44) | (2.64) | (4.48) | (5.11) | |
F | 33.71 | 22.79 | 37.58 | 27.38 | 27.53 | 16.69 |
R2 | 0.1048 | 0.1139 | 0.1882 | 0.1018 | 0.1095 | 0.4426 |
N | 360 | 338 | 360 | 390 | 390 | 390 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low Pollutant Discharge | High Pollutant Discharge | Small Investment | Large Investment | Great Fiscal Decentralization | Small Fiscal Decentralization | |
PM2.5 | −0.080 *** | −0.016 | −0.067 *** | −0.008 | −0.088 *** | 0.046 |
(−3.72) | (−0.66) | (−2.89) | (−0.31) | (−3.48) | (1.61) | |
Density | −0.0543 | −0.165 | −0.320 ** | 0.139 | −0.282 * | 0.661 ** |
(−0.40) | (−0.87) | (−2.22) | (0.65) | (−1.90) | (2.48) | |
FDI | −0.529 | −5.818 *** | −0.348 | −3.981 *** | −1.435 ** | 0.077 |
(−1.20) | (−4.09) | (−0.66) | (−4.35) | (−2.26) | (0.10) | |
Innov | 0.005 ** | −0.003 | 0.004 * | 0.001 * | 0.005 * | 0.005 |
(2.31) | (−0.48) | (1.80) | (1.98) | (1.82) | (1.62) | |
Indus | −0.164 *** | −0.220 *** | −0.124 ** | −0.167 ** | −0.135 ** | −0.128 |
(−3.27) | (−3.04) | (−2.37) | (−2.14) | (−2.35) | (−1.58) | |
_cons | 3.924 *** | 2.178 *** | 3.514 *** | 1.668 * | 4.331 *** | −0.559 |
(5.64) | (2.68) | (4.68) | (1.87) | (5.26) | (−0.59) | |
F | 35.45 | 11.49 | 27.91 | 11.78 | 17.53 | 41.49 |
R2 | 0.1795 | 0.1832 | 0.1200 | 0.2412 | 0.1223 | 0.2169 |
N | 244 | 146 | 254 | 136 | 251 | 139 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less Sewage Charge | Large Sewage Charge | |||||
Labor | Urban | Capital | Labor | Urban | Capital | |
PM2.5 | −0.010 *** | −0.022 * | −0.280 ** | −0.001 | −0.003 | −0.010 |
(−3.37) | (−2.26) | (−3.17) | (−0.36) | (−0.52) | (−0.09) | |
Density | 0.022 | 0.269 *** | 1.258 * | 0.023 | 0.302 *** | 2.658 ** |
(1.21) | (4.41) | (2.30) | (1.55) | (5.30) | (3.16) | |
FDI | −0.169 * | −0.483 * | −6.149 ** | −0.202 ** | −0.987 *** | −13.12 *** |
(−2.45) | (−2.17) | (−3.07) | (−3.11) | (−4.06) | (−3.66) | |
Innov | 0.008 * | 0.001 ** | 0.003 ** | 0.002 *** | 0.006 ** | 0.007 * |
(2.58) | (2.66) | (3.12) | (4.60) | (3.38) | (2.28) | |
Indus | −0.025 *** | −0.064 ** | −0.522 ** | −0.010 | −0.070 ** | −0.931 ** |
(−3.70) | (−2.93) | (−2.62) | (−1.93) | (−3.38) | (−3.03) | |
_cons | 0.474 *** | 1.214 *** | 18.55 *** | 0.128 * | 0.545 * | 9.345 ** |
(4.83) | (3.82) | (6.49) | (2.04) | (2.31) | (2.68) | |
R2 | 0.2286 | 0.2458 | 0.2326 | 0.3132 | 0.5144 | 0.3603 |
N | 254 | 254 | 254 | 136 | 136 | 136 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High Fiscal Decentralization | Low Fiscal Decentralization | |||||
Labor | Urban | Capital | Labor | Urban | Capital | |
PM2.5 | −0.006 * | −0.002 | −0.092 * | −0.001 | −0.011 | −0.049 |
(−2.08) | (−1.22) | (−2.35) | (−0.79) | (−0.48) | (−0.50) | |
Density | 0.051 * | 0.429 *** | 2.306 *** | 0.006 | 0.226 *** | 2.349 *** |
(2.13) | (6.25) | (4.53) | (0.57) | (4.09) | (3.37) | |
FDI | −0.08 | −0.421 | −0.637 | −0.045 | −0.266 | −6.691 ** |
(−0.98) | (−1.65) | (−0.34) | (−1.10) | (−1.41) | (−2.80) | |
Innov | 0.002 *** | 0.005 *** | 0.008 *** | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
(3.93) | (3.37) | (8.34) | (0.93) | (1.63) | (0.21) | |
Indus | −0.028 *** | −0.076 ** | −0.722 *** | 0.006 | 0.027 | 0.550 * |
(−3.35) | (−3.16) | (−4.00) | (1.27) | (1.25) | (2.01) | |
_cons | 0.370 *** | 0.590 | 12.32 *** | 0.118 * | 0.628 * | 8.169 * |
(3.47) | (1.96) | (5.51) | (2.07) | (2.43) | (2.50) | |
R2 | 0.3788 | 0.4668 | 0.6201 | 0.1255 | 0.1262 | 0.1238 |
N | 206 | 206 | 206 | 184 | 184 | 184 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, Q.; Yuan, C.-H. Did Haze Pollution Harm the Quality of Economic Development?—An Empirical Study Based on China’s PM2.5 Concentrations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041607
Zhao Q, Yuan C-H. Did Haze Pollution Harm the Quality of Economic Development?—An Empirical Study Based on China’s PM2.5 Concentrations. Sustainability. 2020; 12(4):1607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041607
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Qing, and Chih-Hung Yuan. 2020. "Did Haze Pollution Harm the Quality of Economic Development?—An Empirical Study Based on China’s PM2.5 Concentrations" Sustainability 12, no. 4: 1607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041607
APA StyleZhao, Q., & Yuan, C. -H. (2020). Did Haze Pollution Harm the Quality of Economic Development?—An Empirical Study Based on China’s PM2.5 Concentrations. Sustainability, 12(4), 1607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041607