Department of Economics, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, United States of America.
Tsinghua University, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 10;17(2):e0263325. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263325. eCollection 2022.
China has significantly reduced the energy consumption for per unit of GDP by using both command-and-controls or market-based strategies. This paper examines empirically the relative effectiveness and efficiency of command-and-control strategy (energy reduction target) vs. market-based strategy (electricity price). We find that (1) electricity price was similarly effective in reducing electricity intensity across firms, but government targets were more effective for firms that were more technologically outdated and energy intensive; and (2) government targets led to expenditures that were not useful in reducing energy intensity, suggesting inefficiency associated with targets. Despite the Chinese governments' capacities and resources in directing and influencing enterprises, market-based approaches might still be more effective and efficient than command-and-control ones to reduce energy intensity.
中国通过采用指令控制或市场手段，显著降低了单位 GDP 的能耗。本文通过实证检验，比较了指令控制手段（节能减排目标）和市场手段（电价）的相对有效性和效率。研究发现：（1）电价在降低企业电力强度方面同样有效，但政府目标对于技术更落后、能源密集型的企业更为有效；（2）政府目标导致了在降低能源强度方面没有用处的支出，表明目标与效率低下有关。尽管中国政府在指导和影响企业方面具有能力和资源，但市场手段在降低能源强度方面可能仍然比指令控制手段更有效率。
