行政手段与市场机制:中国气候政策碳减排效果的比较  

Mandate-based and Market-based Policies:Comparative Analyses on Carbon Mitigation Effectiveness of China's Climate Policies

作　　者：林鹏昇 李硕 Lin Pengsheng;Li Shuo

机构地区：[1]清华大学经济管理学院 [2]香港大学经济及工商管理学院,中国香港999077

出　　处：《世界经济》2024年第6期149-175,共27页The Journal of World Economy

摘　　要：行政手段与市场机制是实现既定政策目标的两种方式,关于两者熟优熟劣的讨论尚无定论。本文以中国气候政策的碳减排效果为例,在事件分析法的框架下比较低碳省市试点(行政手段)和碳排放权交易市场试点(市场机制)的碳减排效果及其影响机制。研究发现,低碳省市试点通过抑制产出而实现了总量减排目标,但是并未降低碳排放强度;碳交易试点在降低碳排放强度的同时,扩大了经济产出,最终使碳排放总量增加。异质性分析表明,低碳省市试点碳排放量的降低主要源自经济相对落后的地区,碳交易试点对碳排放量的促进作用在碳排放强度较低的地区更为明显。在中国努力实现碳达峰、碳中和目标的时代背景下,本文为未来的气候政策设计提供了有益参考。Mandate-based and market-based policies are two ways to achieve policy goals,and there is no consensus on which is better.Taking China's climate policies for example,this paper compares the carbon mitigation effectiveness and mechanisms of the low-carbon provinces and cities pilot(LCPC),a mandate-based policy,and the emission trading system pilot(ETS),a market-based 11 policy,using event study analyses.Through mechanism tests,we find that LCPC achieved carbon reduction effects by curbing output,but the emission intensity did not decrease.On the other hand,ETS resulted in a reduction in carbon emission intensity and an expansion of economic output,though the total carbon emissions increased.The heterogeneity analyses show that the main driving force for reducing carbon emissions in LCPC is from regions with relatively worse economic status,and the effect on increasing carbon emissions of ETS is most obvious in areas with low carbon emission intensity.In the context of China's goal of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality,this paper provides a beneficial reference for future climate policy design.

关 键 词：低碳省市试点 碳排放权交易市场试点 行政手段 市场机制 

分 类 号：F426[经济管理—产业经济]