nav emailalert searchbtn searchbox tablepage yinyongbenwen piczone journalimg journalInfo journalinfonormal searchdiv searchzone qikanlogo popupnotification paper paperNew
2020, 01, No.339 55-64
经济发展与环境治理的跷跷板:官员竞争博弈下的策略变化
基金项目(Foundation): 国家自然科学基金青年项目“跨域环境污染协同治理的绩效评价研究”(71804012)
邮箱(Email):
DOI: 10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2020.01.005
摘要:

经济发展和环境治理是关系社会福利水平的两个重要指标,但具体到地方官员施政中,不同的官员有不同的策略安排。文章首先基于博弈模型构建了一个官员竞争博弈场景,通过逻辑推导,证明官员在竞争博弈中的相对优劣状态差异是导致官员策略差异的原因。其次,运用倾向得分匹配方法实证检验官员策略差异对辖区"经济福利"和"环境福利"的影响。回归结果发现,官员年龄差对环境治理会有不同影响;低于平均年龄的官员在FDI、税收、固定资产投资等"经济福利"指标上显著高于同级官员2.59万元、0.13万元和0.41万元;而高于平均年龄的官员比同级同行在"环境福利"上有更优秀的表现,在固体废弃物、废气、废水等指标上显著低于同级官员的52吨、21吨和6吨。作为弥补,较年轻官员会采取"踩跷跷板"策略,在一些显性环境治理指标上"适度有为",例如提高环保投入占比,以回应中央及公众的关切。从理论分析和实证结果中得到的政策启示是在干部晋升考核体系中应进一步突出"绿色发展"的重要性并强化官员的全局意识,激励官员关注辖区非经济福利。

Abstract:

Economic growth and environmental governance are two important factors in public welfare. However, different governors have different strategy selection in handling local affairs. In this paper, a competition game scene was established based on the Game Theory. Through the scene, we inferred that governors' strategy selection depended on relative advantage or disadvantage. Then the Propensity Score Matching(PSM) was used to measure the economic welfare and environmental welfare under the different strategy selections. The empirical result showed that governors, whose ages were below average, had better performance in economic achievements, while governors, whose ages were above average, had better performance in environmental achievements. Economic indicators(FDI, taxation, fixed asset investment) of the city governed by junior were 25.9 thousand yuan, 1.3 thousand yuan and 4.1 thousand yuan higher than average. To make up for this, younger officials will adopt a "seesaw strategy with moderate ambition" on some explicit environmental target, such as increasing the proportion of government spending, devoted to environmental protection, in response to central and public concerns. Environmental indicators(solid waste, waste gas, waste water) of the senior were 52 t, 21 t and 6 t higher than average. Finally, we put forward some suggestions that cadre promotion assessment system be supposed to highlight green development and overall consciousness of young governor so as to motivate officials to attach importance to noneconomic welfare within the jurisdiction.

参考文献

[1]姚洋,张牧扬.官员绩效与晋升锦标赛——来自城市数据的证据[J].经济研究,2013(1):137-150.

[2]郭文伟,李嘉琪.房价泡沫抑制了经济高质量增长吗?——基于13个经济圈的经验分析[J].中国软科学,2019(8):77-91.

[3]金刚,沈坤荣.新中国70年经济发展:政府行为演变与增长动力转换[J].宏观质量研究,2019(3):1-16.

[4]李强.财政分权、FDI与环境污染:来自长江经济带的例证[J].统计与决策,2019(4):173-175.

[5]吴勋,白蕾.财政分权、地方政府行为与雾霾污染——基于73个城市PM2.5浓度的实证研究[J].经济问题,2019(3):23-31.

[6]CHEN Z,TANG J,WAN J,CHEN Y.Promotion incentives for local officials and the expansion of urban construction land in China:Using the Yangtze River Delta as a case study[J].Land Use Policy,2017,63(4):214-225.

[7]BLICKLE G,OERDER K,SUMMERS J K.The impact of political skill on career success of employees' representatives[J].Journal of Vocational Behavior,2010,77(3):383-390.

[8]AZMI I A G,ISMAIL S H S,BASIR S A.Women career advancement in public service:a study in Indonesia[J].Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,2012,58(8):298-306.

[9]SHIPILOV A,LABIANCA G,KALNYSH V,KALNYSH Y.Network-building behavioral tendencies,range,and promotion speed[J].Social Networks,2014,39(8):71-83.

[10]毕睿罡,王钦云.政企合谋视角下的环境治理——基于官员考核标准变化的准自然实验[J].当代经济科学,2019(4):62-75.

[11]金刚,沈坤荣.地方官员晋升激励与河长制演进:基于官员年龄的视角[J].财贸经济,2019(4):20-34.

[12]彭冲,陆铭.从新城看治理:增长目标短期化下的建城热潮及后果[J].管理世界,2019(8):44-57.

[13]熊瑞祥,王慷楷.地方官员晋升激励、产业政策与资源配置效率[J].经济评论,2017(3):104-118.

[14]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作——兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设问题长期存在的原因[J].经济研究,2004(6):33-40.

[15]刘胜,顾乃华.官员治理、外商直接投资与地区环境污染——基于官员激励及其异质性视角[J].经济体制改革,2017(2):24-30.

[16]韩超,刘鑫颖,王海.规制官员激励与行为偏好——独立性缺失下环境规制失效新解[J].管理世界,2016(2):82-94.

[17]唐啸,周绍杰,刘源浩,胡鞍钢.加大行政奖惩力度是中国环境绩效改善的主要原因吗?[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2017(9):83-92.

[18]卢洪友,张楠.地方政府换届、税收征管与税收激进[J].经济管理,2016(2):160-168.

[19]卢盛峰,陈思霞,杨子涵.“官出数字”:官员晋升激励下的GDP失真[J].中国工业经济,2017(7):118-136.

[20]HAYO B,NEUMEIER F.Political leaders' socioeconomic background and fiscal performance in Germany[J].European Journal of Political Economy,2014,34(6):184-205.

[21]刘海洋,林令涛,黄顺武.地方官员变更与企业兴衰——来自地级市层面的证据[J].中国工业经济,2017(1):62-80.

[22]RUBI D.Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Non Randomized Studies[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,1974,66(1):688-701.

[23]张华,唐珏.官员变更与雾霾污染——来自地级市的证据[J].上海财经大学学报,2019(5):110-125.

[24]李佳佳,罗能生.税收安排、空间溢出与区域环境污染[J].产业经济研究,2016(6):57-66.

[25]LI H,ZHOU L A.Political turnover and economic performance:the incentive role of personnel control in China[J].Journal of Public Economics,2005,89(9):1743-1762.

[26]CHIRINKO R S,WILSON D J.Tax competition among U.S.states:racing to the bottom or riding on a seesaw?[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,2011,36(4):589-609.

(1)此处必须假定就平均意义而言官员在本质上是类似的,否则上级部门肯定会提拔禀赋较高的官员,晋升竞争也就不存在。

(2)需要再次强调,本文所指的“相对竞争优势”或“相对竞争劣势”,仅用于区别官员参与竞争博弈时的相对位置状态,并不表示具有优势的官员一定能够获得晋升。

基本信息:

DOI:10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2020.01.005

中图分类号:D630.3

引用信息:

[1]杨超,程宝栋,于畅.经济发展与环境治理的跷跷板:官员竞争博弈下的策略变化[J].商业经济与管理,2020,No.339(01):55-64.DOI:10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2020.01.005.

基金信息:

国家自然科学基金青年项目“跨域环境污染协同治理的绩效评价研究”(71804012)

发布时间:

2020-01-15

出版时间:

2020-01-15

检 索 高级检索

引用

GB/T 7714-2015 格式引文
MLA格式引文
APA格式引文