Non-linear effects of environmental regulations on economic outcomes

Abstract

Purpose

There is no conclusive whether environmental regulation is a constraint or an incentive to the production development. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the non-linear effects of environmental regulations on economic outcomes from the combined perspective of labor productivity and environmental regulation costs.

Design/methodology/approach

Under the assumption of maximizing the utility of residents and maximizing the profit of firms, this research introduces a mathematical model that incorporates the promotion effect of environmental regulations on labor productivity and the costs of environmental regulations. On this basis, the authors analyze the non-linear relationship between environmental regulations and economic outcomes theoretically. This paper also conducts an empirical test using the panel data of 28 provinces in China from 1998 to 2015 through threshold regression.

Findings

Theoretical analysis shows that environmental regulations impose both the environmental regulation cost effect and the compensation effect on the labor productivity enhancement. The ultimate impact of environmental regulation on economic outcomes depends on the comparison of these two effects. Under the different intensities of environmental regulation, the magnitude of these two effects may not be equal. The empirical results further confirm the nonlinear relationship between environmental regulations and economic outcomes.

Originality/value

Previous studies have neglected the role of environmental regulations in improving labor productivity. This work’s main contribution is to propose a novel framework to study the non-linear relationship between environmental regulation and the growth of economic outcomes from perspective of labor productivity and the costs of environmental regulations.

Citation

Li, J., Ji, J. and Zhang, Y. (2019), "Non-linear effects of environmental regulations on economic outcomes", Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 368-382. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-06-2018-0104