政府环境信息公开有助于生态环境质量改善吗?
|
摘要
在对中国29个省份2008—2015年生态环境质量进行综合测度的基础上,本文旨在探究政府环境信息公开对生态环境质量改善的地区差异与协调状况。通过构建面板模型研究政策效果的地区差异性,利用偏离差系数研究协调性,并进一步借助泰尔指数探讨其地区差异。本文研究发现:政府环境信息公开对生态环境质量的改善作用存在显著的地区差异性;"政府环境信息公开—生态环境质量改善"系统协调性较低,协调状态逐渐由轻度失调恶化至中度失调;政府环境信息公开与生态环境质量协调性的区域变化始终受区域内差异和区域间差异的共同影响,区域内的差异是整体差异的主要来源,政策落地的平衡性、整体性与协同性有待加强。
As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the new era,the main contradictions in Chinese society have changed. The national demand lies not only in the material pursuit of "invaluable assets",but also in the yearning for the life of "lucid waters and lush mountains". To ensure the harmonious coexistence of "invaluable assets"and "lucid waters and lush mountains"is an important issue that must be solved in the process of realizing sustainability. A reasonable and effective environmental policy aims at maximizing economic output and minimizing pollution emissions. At present,China's environmental regulation is still in the command and control stage,which is complemented by market. However,with the rapid development of the Internet,the limitations of traditional environmental control policy in practical application are gradually highlighted. In this context,regulation measures characterized by information disclosure came into being.Although some papers have built numerous index systems,and comprehensively evaluated government environmental information disclosure policy. However,these studies focus on the evaluation of policy implementation,pay greater attention to the ranking of policy implementation in different regions,and they ignore the effectiveness of the government environmental information disclosure on the improvement of ecological environment quality. Moreover,they lack analyzing regional differences. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the regional differences in the impact of government environmental information disclosure on ecological environmental quality,and to explore the coupling between the governmental environmental information disclosure and the change of ecological environmental quality,so as to provide a basis for decision-making to ensure high quality development of ecological environment in China.
The harmonious coexistence between"invaluable assets"and"lucid waters and lush mountains"is the essence of sustainable development,while the economical and effective environmental policy is their bridge.On the basis of measuring the ecological quality index of 29 provinces in China from 2008 to 2015,this paper is to explore the balance and the coordination of government environmental information disclosure to the improvement of ecological environment quality.We used panel data to analyze the regional differences of the impact of government environmental information disclosure on the ecological environment quality.Then,this paper discussed the coordination between the degree of government environmental information disclosure and the change of ecological quality,and it further analyzed the regional difference of coordination by means of the Theil index.
The results showed that the effect of government environmental information disclosure on ecological quality improvement is not balanced.The results also showed that the effect of government environmental information disclosure on the improvement of ecological environment quality is uncoordinated.According to the national average coordination degrees,the"government environmental information disclosure-ecological quality improvement"system has a low degree of coordinated development,and its coordination presented a downward trend.In addition,regional change of coordination degree of government environmental information disclosure and ecological quality was always affected by the change of intraregional difference and inter-regional difference.The differences in the same region are the major influencing factors for the formation of overall differences.
Eastern regions should reverse the unfavorable ecological environment,and create atmosphere for high quality development of economy and ecological environment.Central regions should improve the efficiency of use of resources,and avoid potential ecological crisis.Western regions should cooperate with eastern region to promote its own high quality development under the condition that ecological environment not be damaged.The government should change its role and construct a service-oriented government,that is,it should change from the traditional role of the manager to the role of service provider.Local governments should also strengthen the basic capacity building,and pay attention to integrity and synergy of policy.
As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the new era,the main contradictions in Chinese society have changed. The national demand lies not only in the material pursuit of "invaluable assets",but also in the yearning for the life of "lucid waters and lush mountains". To ensure the harmonious coexistence of "invaluable assets"and "lucid waters and lush mountains"is an important issue that must be solved in the process of realizing sustainability. A reasonable and effective environmental policy aims at maximizing economic output and minimizing pollution emissions. At present,China's environmental regulation is still in the command and control stage,which is complemented by market. However,with the rapid development of the Internet,the limitations of traditional environmental control policy in practical application are gradually highlighted. In this context,regulation measures characterized by information disclosure came into being.Although some papers have built numerous index systems,and comprehensively evaluated government environmental information disclosure policy. However,these studies focus on the evaluation of policy implementation,pay greater attention to the ranking of policy implementation in different regions,and they ignore the effectiveness of the government environmental information disclosure on the improvement of ecological environment quality. Moreover,they lack analyzing regional differences. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the regional differences in the impact of government environmental information disclosure on ecological environmental quality,and to explore the coupling between the governmental environmental information disclosure and the change of ecological environmental quality,so as to provide a basis for decision-making to ensure high quality development of ecological environment in China.
The harmonious coexistence between"invaluable assets"and"lucid waters and lush mountains"is the essence of sustainable development,while the economical and effective environmental policy is their bridge.On the basis of measuring the ecological quality index of 29 provinces in China from 2008 to 2015,this paper is to explore the balance and the coordination of government environmental information disclosure to the improvement of ecological environment quality.We used panel data to analyze the regional differences of the impact of government environmental information disclosure on the ecological environment quality.Then,this paper discussed the coordination between the degree of government environmental information disclosure and the change of ecological quality,and it further analyzed the regional difference of coordination by means of the Theil index.
The results showed that the effect of government environmental information disclosure on ecological quality improvement is not balanced.The results also showed that the effect of government environmental information disclosure on the improvement of ecological environment quality is uncoordinated.According to the national average coordination degrees,the"government environmental information disclosure-ecological quality improvement"system has a low degree of coordinated development,and its coordination presented a downward trend.In addition,regional change of coordination degree of government environmental information disclosure and ecological quality was always affected by the change of intraregional difference and inter-regional difference.The differences in the same region are the major influencing factors for the formation of overall differences.
Eastern regions should reverse the unfavorable ecological environment,and create atmosphere for high quality development of economy and ecological environment.Central regions should improve the efficiency of use of resources,and avoid potential ecological crisis.Western regions should cooperate with eastern region to promote its own high quality development under the condition that ecological environment not be damaged.The government should change its role and construct a service-oriented government,that is,it should change from the traditional role of the manager to the role of service provider.Local governments should also strengthen the basic capacity building,and pay attention to integrity and synergy of policy.
引文
[1]刘鹏,李钢.美国环境管制政策的演化及对中国的启示[J].北京:经济研究参考,2016,(22):21-33.
[2]马思雨.我国政府环境信息公开的理论层面分析[J].太原:法制博览,2015,(9):283-283.
[3]刘峰,孔新峰.多中心治理理论的启迪与警示---埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆获诺贝尔经济学奖的政治学思考[J].北京:行政管理改革,2010,(1):68-72.
[4]埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆.公共事务的治理之道:集体行动制度的演进[M].上海三联书店,2000.
[5]Sherry R.A Ladder of Citizen Participation[J].Journal of the American Institute of Planners,1969,35,(4):216-224.
[6]Cabin P.,and C.Robert.Challenging the Poressions:Frontier for Rural Development[M].Intermediate:Technology Publications,1993.
[7]Sinclair J.,A.Diduck,and P.Fitzpatrick.Conceptualizing Learning for Sustainability through Environmental Assessment:Critical Reflections on 15 Years of Research[J].Environment Impact Assessment Review,2008,(5):415-428.
[8]Kassinis G.,and N.Vafeas.Stakeholder Pressures and Environmental Performance[J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49,(1):145-159.
[9]Greenstone M.,and R.Hanna.Environmental Regulations,Air and Water Pollution,and Infant Mortality in India[J].American Economic Review,2014,(56):3038-3072.
[10]陈振明,薛澜.中国公共管理理论研究的重点领域和主题[J].北京:中国社会科学,2007,(3):140-152.
[11]郭川,孙烨,廉洁.中、日两国企业环境信息披露差异比较[J].长春:经济纵横,2007,(19):68-70.
[12]王彬辉,董伟,郑玉梅.欧盟与我国政府环境信息公开制度之比较[J].北京:法学杂志,2010,(7):43-46.
[13]袁小红.中欧政府环境信息公开立法宗旨之比较[J].哈尔滨:学理论,2018,(1):130-132.
[14]杜万平,王梦怡.中美对比浅析我国环境信息披露制度的不足[J].太原:生产力研究,2012,(12):161-162.
[15]陈书全.论我国环境信息公开制度的完善[J].济南:东岳论丛,2011,(12):158-162.
[16]劳韵仪,沈阳.论我国环境信息公开制度的完善[J].徐州:环境科技,2011,(S1):81-83.
[17]贾利佳,钟卫红.政府环境信息公开的现状、问题及展望[J].汕头大学学报(人文社会科学版),2018,(2):74-80.
[18]孙岩,刘红艳,李鹏.中国环境信息公开的政策变迁:路径与逻辑解释[J].济南:中国人口·资源与环境,2018,(2):168-176.
[19]鞠昌华,赵洪波.环境信息公开:现状、问题及对策[J].郑州:中州学刊,2013,(9):172-176.
[20]向欢.环境信息公开的法理阐述与困境剖析[J].成都:理论与改革,2015,(4):150-153.
[21]王华,郭红燕,黄德生.我国环境信息公开现状、问题与对策[J].北京:中国环境管理,2016,(1):83-91.
[22]沈洪涛,黄楠.政府、企业与公众:环境共治的经济学分析与机制构建研究[J].广州:暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,(1):18-26.
[23]严厚福.公开与不公开之间:我国公众环境知情权和政府环境信息管理权的冲突与平衡[J].上海大学学报(社会科学版),2017,(2):99-109.
[24]郭红彩,姚圣.政企关联与地方政府环境信息公开:秉公抑或包庇[J].杭州:财经论丛,2014,(9):60-67.
[25]郭红彩.政企关系、市场化进程与地方政府环境信息公开---基于我国A股高污染行业的经验证据[J].武汉:中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2014,(6):55-62.
[26]周军,李霞,周国梅,苏岚.我国政府环境信息公开现状评估及政策建议[J].北京:环境保护,2011,(13):33-35.
[27]贺桂珍,吕永龙,张磊,Mol ArthurP.J.,冯嫣.中国政府环境信息公开实施效果评价[J].北京:环境科学,2011,(11):3137-3144.
[28]任胜钢,蒋婷婷,李晓磊,袁宝龙.中国环境规制类型对区域生态效率影响的差异化机制研究[J].北京:经济管理,2016,(1):157-165.
[29]黄艳茹,孟凡蓉,陈子韬,刘佳.政府环境信息公开的影响因素---基于中国城市PITI指数的实证研究[J].西安:情报杂志,2017,(7):149-155.
[30]刘朝,赵志华.第三方监管能否提高中国环境规制效率?---基于政企合谋视角[J].北京:经济管理,2017,(7):34-44.
[31]高吉喜.可持续发展理论探索[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2001.
[32]Yang,W.,J.Zhao,and K.Zhao Analysis of Regional Difference and Spatial Influencing Factors of Human Settlement Ecological Environment in China[J].Sustainability,2018,10,(5):1520.
[33]杨万平,赵金凯.中国人居生态环境质量的时空差异及影响因素研究[J].合肥:华东经济管理,2018,(2):58-67.
[34]李雪梅,韩阳,邵双.环境污染与植物修复[M].北京:化学工业出版社,2017.
[35]金维明.降水量变化对大气污染物浓度影响分析[J].沈阳:环境保护科学,2012,(1):23-27.
[36]夏华永,李绪录,韩康.大鹏湾环境容量研究Ⅰ:自净能力模拟分析[J].北京:中国环境科学,2011,(12):2031-2038.
[37]杨万平.中国省际环境污染的动态综合评价及影响因素[J].北京:经济管理,2010,(8):159-165.
[38]金凤.过量使用化肥对环境的污染及防治对策[J].武汉:绿色科技,2018,(4):102-103.
[39]谢起慧,褚建勋.基于社交媒体的公众参与政府危机传播研究---中美案例比较视角[J].北京:中国软科学,2016,(3):130-140.
[40]吴超鹏,叶小杰,吴世农.媒体监督、政治关联与高管变更---中国的经验证据[J].北京:经济管理,2012,(2):57-65.
[41]郇庆治.环境非政府组织与政府的关系:以自然之友为例[J].南京:江海学刊,2008,(2):130-136.
[42]刘世颖.中国环境非政府组织与政府关系的模式研究[D].上海交通大学,2011.
[43]吴培,李成勋.充分发挥政府经济职能是贯彻落实五大发展理念的保障[J].新乡:管理学刊,2017,(4):10-16.
[44]江耘,罗建娣.基于博弈的舆情信息仿真研究[J].新乡:管理学刊,2016,(2):43-49.
[45]杨飞虎.公共投资中的腐败问题与经济增长---基于中国1980-2008年的实证分析[J].北京:经济管理,2011,(8):162-169.
[46]Haley,G.Subsidies to Chinese Industry:State Capitalism,Business Strategy,and Trade Policy[M].New York:Oxford University Press,2013.
[47]庞长亮,杨天舒.中国垄断性国有企业负外部效应的治理[J].长春:当代经济研究,2014,(10):66-70.
[48]张泽义,徐宝亮.规制强度、影子经济与污染排放[J].北京:经济与管理研究,2017,(11):100-111.
[49]余长林,高宏建.环境管制对中国环境污染的影响---基于隐性经济的视角[J].北京:中国工业经济,2015,(7):21-35.
(1)正向指标为指标数值越大,生态环境质量越好的指标;负向指标为指标数值越小,生态环境质量越好的指标;中性指标为指标数值过大或过小对生态环境均不好的指标,其适合保持在合理的值或维持在特定区间。
(1)东部地区包括:北京、天津、河北、辽宁、上海、江苏、浙江、福建、山东、广东10省份;中部地区包括:山西、吉林、黑龙江、安徽、江西、河南、湖北、湖南八省份;西部地区包括:广西、重庆、四川、贵州、云南、陕西、甘肃、青海、宁夏、新疆、内蒙古11省份。
(1)详见自然资源保护协会网站,http://www.nrdc.cn/info_library.php。
(1)受篇幅限制,具体结果本文没有列出。
(1)泰尔指数的大小表明各地区“政府环境信息公开-生态环境质量改善”系统协调性的差异程度。
[2]马思雨.我国政府环境信息公开的理论层面分析[J].太原:法制博览,2015,(9):283-283.
[3]刘峰,孔新峰.多中心治理理论的启迪与警示---埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆获诺贝尔经济学奖的政治学思考[J].北京:行政管理改革,2010,(1):68-72.
[4]埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆.公共事务的治理之道:集体行动制度的演进[M].上海三联书店,2000.
[5]Sherry R.A Ladder of Citizen Participation[J].Journal of the American Institute of Planners,1969,35,(4):216-224.
[6]Cabin P.,and C.Robert.Challenging the Poressions:Frontier for Rural Development[M].Intermediate:Technology Publications,1993.
[7]Sinclair J.,A.Diduck,and P.Fitzpatrick.Conceptualizing Learning for Sustainability through Environmental Assessment:Critical Reflections on 15 Years of Research[J].Environment Impact Assessment Review,2008,(5):415-428.
[8]Kassinis G.,and N.Vafeas.Stakeholder Pressures and Environmental Performance[J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49,(1):145-159.
[9]Greenstone M.,and R.Hanna.Environmental Regulations,Air and Water Pollution,and Infant Mortality in India[J].American Economic Review,2014,(56):3038-3072.
[10]陈振明,薛澜.中国公共管理理论研究的重点领域和主题[J].北京:中国社会科学,2007,(3):140-152.
[11]郭川,孙烨,廉洁.中、日两国企业环境信息披露差异比较[J].长春:经济纵横,2007,(19):68-70.
[12]王彬辉,董伟,郑玉梅.欧盟与我国政府环境信息公开制度之比较[J].北京:法学杂志,2010,(7):43-46.
[13]袁小红.中欧政府环境信息公开立法宗旨之比较[J].哈尔滨:学理论,2018,(1):130-132.
[14]杜万平,王梦怡.中美对比浅析我国环境信息披露制度的不足[J].太原:生产力研究,2012,(12):161-162.
[15]陈书全.论我国环境信息公开制度的完善[J].济南:东岳论丛,2011,(12):158-162.
[16]劳韵仪,沈阳.论我国环境信息公开制度的完善[J].徐州:环境科技,2011,(S1):81-83.
[17]贾利佳,钟卫红.政府环境信息公开的现状、问题及展望[J].汕头大学学报(人文社会科学版),2018,(2):74-80.
[18]孙岩,刘红艳,李鹏.中国环境信息公开的政策变迁:路径与逻辑解释[J].济南:中国人口·资源与环境,2018,(2):168-176.
[19]鞠昌华,赵洪波.环境信息公开:现状、问题及对策[J].郑州:中州学刊,2013,(9):172-176.
[20]向欢.环境信息公开的法理阐述与困境剖析[J].成都:理论与改革,2015,(4):150-153.
[21]王华,郭红燕,黄德生.我国环境信息公开现状、问题与对策[J].北京:中国环境管理,2016,(1):83-91.
[22]沈洪涛,黄楠.政府、企业与公众:环境共治的经济学分析与机制构建研究[J].广州:暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,(1):18-26.
[23]严厚福.公开与不公开之间:我国公众环境知情权和政府环境信息管理权的冲突与平衡[J].上海大学学报(社会科学版),2017,(2):99-109.
[24]郭红彩,姚圣.政企关联与地方政府环境信息公开:秉公抑或包庇[J].杭州:财经论丛,2014,(9):60-67.
[25]郭红彩.政企关系、市场化进程与地方政府环境信息公开---基于我国A股高污染行业的经验证据[J].武汉:中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2014,(6):55-62.
[26]周军,李霞,周国梅,苏岚.我国政府环境信息公开现状评估及政策建议[J].北京:环境保护,2011,(13):33-35.
[27]贺桂珍,吕永龙,张磊,Mol ArthurP.J.,冯嫣.中国政府环境信息公开实施效果评价[J].北京:环境科学,2011,(11):3137-3144.
[28]任胜钢,蒋婷婷,李晓磊,袁宝龙.中国环境规制类型对区域生态效率影响的差异化机制研究[J].北京:经济管理,2016,(1):157-165.
[29]黄艳茹,孟凡蓉,陈子韬,刘佳.政府环境信息公开的影响因素---基于中国城市PITI指数的实证研究[J].西安:情报杂志,2017,(7):149-155.
[30]刘朝,赵志华.第三方监管能否提高中国环境规制效率?---基于政企合谋视角[J].北京:经济管理,2017,(7):34-44.
[31]高吉喜.可持续发展理论探索[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2001.
[32]Yang,W.,J.Zhao,and K.Zhao Analysis of Regional Difference and Spatial Influencing Factors of Human Settlement Ecological Environment in China[J].Sustainability,2018,10,(5):1520.
[33]杨万平,赵金凯.中国人居生态环境质量的时空差异及影响因素研究[J].合肥:华东经济管理,2018,(2):58-67.
[34]李雪梅,韩阳,邵双.环境污染与植物修复[M].北京:化学工业出版社,2017.
[35]金维明.降水量变化对大气污染物浓度影响分析[J].沈阳:环境保护科学,2012,(1):23-27.
[36]夏华永,李绪录,韩康.大鹏湾环境容量研究Ⅰ:自净能力模拟分析[J].北京:中国环境科学,2011,(12):2031-2038.
[37]杨万平.中国省际环境污染的动态综合评价及影响因素[J].北京:经济管理,2010,(8):159-165.
[38]金凤.过量使用化肥对环境的污染及防治对策[J].武汉:绿色科技,2018,(4):102-103.
[39]谢起慧,褚建勋.基于社交媒体的公众参与政府危机传播研究---中美案例比较视角[J].北京:中国软科学,2016,(3):130-140.
[40]吴超鹏,叶小杰,吴世农.媒体监督、政治关联与高管变更---中国的经验证据[J].北京:经济管理,2012,(2):57-65.
[41]郇庆治.环境非政府组织与政府的关系:以自然之友为例[J].南京:江海学刊,2008,(2):130-136.
[42]刘世颖.中国环境非政府组织与政府关系的模式研究[D].上海交通大学,2011.
[43]吴培,李成勋.充分发挥政府经济职能是贯彻落实五大发展理念的保障[J].新乡:管理学刊,2017,(4):10-16.
[44]江耘,罗建娣.基于博弈的舆情信息仿真研究[J].新乡:管理学刊,2016,(2):43-49.
[45]杨飞虎.公共投资中的腐败问题与经济增长---基于中国1980-2008年的实证分析[J].北京:经济管理,2011,(8):162-169.
[46]Haley,G.Subsidies to Chinese Industry:State Capitalism,Business Strategy,and Trade Policy[M].New York:Oxford University Press,2013.
[47]庞长亮,杨天舒.中国垄断性国有企业负外部效应的治理[J].长春:当代经济研究,2014,(10):66-70.
[48]张泽义,徐宝亮.规制强度、影子经济与污染排放[J].北京:经济与管理研究,2017,(11):100-111.
[49]余长林,高宏建.环境管制对中国环境污染的影响---基于隐性经济的视角[J].北京:中国工业经济,2015,(7):21-35.
(1)正向指标为指标数值越大,生态环境质量越好的指标;负向指标为指标数值越小,生态环境质量越好的指标;中性指标为指标数值过大或过小对生态环境均不好的指标,其适合保持在合理的值或维持在特定区间。
(1)东部地区包括:北京、天津、河北、辽宁、上海、江苏、浙江、福建、山东、广东10省份;中部地区包括:山西、吉林、黑龙江、安徽、江西、河南、湖北、湖南八省份;西部地区包括:广西、重庆、四川、贵州、云南、陕西、甘肃、青海、宁夏、新疆、内蒙古11省份。
(1)详见自然资源保护协会网站,http://www.nrdc.cn/info_library.php。
(1)受篇幅限制,具体结果本文没有列出。
(1)泰尔指数的大小表明各地区“政府环境信息公开-生态环境质量改善”系统协调性的差异程度。