{"title":"Exploring the effect of carbon cap-and-trade policy in China based on the evidence from multi-dimensional association","authors":"I. Tsai","doi":"10.1080/15567249.2023.2250775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The integration or segmentation of regional carbon prices implies that barriers may hinder prices from adjusting efficiently and impede linkages between regional carbon markets. Past studies have found that cross-regional carbon prices in China tend to diverge, indicating unbalanced regional markets and that carbon cap-and-trade policies may be insufficiently effective. China’s carbon trading pilots opened in 2013. Is the integration efficient? This is the research question addressed in this study. This paper uses the carbon prices of four carbon-trading pilot regions in China (i.e. Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangdong) over the period of January 1, 2014, to March 23, 2021, to explore whether prices are correlated across three dimensions: long-term convergence, short-term correlation, and volatility transmission by adopting a vector error correction model with heterogeneous variances. And by using longer-term daily data and empirical tests that can account for the multiple-faceted correlations, this paper provides evidence showing that long-term convergence and risk transfer between the four regional carbon prices exist, which indicates significant regional integration. The results indicate that the price behavior of the Beijing pilot is efficient and that the Shanghai pilot has the lowest volatility. The paper also documents an information transfer pattern. For example, the Beijing pilot is shown to be the leading risk transfer market, whereas the Shanghai pilot is shown to be the market where most risk is transferred. Contrary to findings elsewhere, our main results demonstrate that China’s carbon markets exhibit integration efficiency and no imbalance between regions. This may be because the efficiency of China’s carbon markets has improved over time. The evidence also implies that if a multi-dimensional correlation has not been considered, it may underestimate the efficiency of regional carbon prices’ integration.","PeriodicalId":51247,"journal":{"name":"Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2023.2250775","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT The integration or segmentation of regional carbon prices implies that barriers may hinder prices from adjusting efficiently and impede linkages between regional carbon markets. Past studies have found that cross-regional carbon prices in China tend to diverge, indicating unbalanced regional markets and that carbon cap-and-trade policies may be insufficiently effective. China’s carbon trading pilots opened in 2013. Is the integration efficient? This is the research question addressed in this study. This paper uses the carbon prices of four carbon-trading pilot regions in China (i.e. Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangdong) over the period of January 1, 2014, to March 23, 2021, to explore whether prices are correlated across three dimensions: long-term convergence, short-term correlation, and volatility transmission by adopting a vector error correction model with heterogeneous variances. And by using longer-term daily data and empirical tests that can account for the multiple-faceted correlations, this paper provides evidence showing that long-term convergence and risk transfer between the four regional carbon prices exist, which indicates significant regional integration. The results indicate that the price behavior of the Beijing pilot is efficient and that the Shanghai pilot has the lowest volatility. The paper also documents an information transfer pattern. For example, the Beijing pilot is shown to be the leading risk transfer market, whereas the Shanghai pilot is shown to be the market where most risk is transferred. Contrary to findings elsewhere, our main results demonstrate that China’s carbon markets exhibit integration efficiency and no imbalance between regions. This may be because the efficiency of China’s carbon markets has improved over time. The evidence also implies that if a multi-dimensional correlation has not been considered, it may underestimate the efficiency of regional carbon prices’ integration.
期刊介绍:
12 issues per year
Abstracted and/or indexed in: Applied Science & Technology Index; API Abstracts/Literature; Automatic Subject Index Citation; BIOSIS Previews; Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Economics and Finance; Chemical Abstracts; CSA Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts; CSA Environmental Sciences & Pollution Management Database; CSA Pollution Abstracts; Current Contents/Engineering, Technology & Applied Sciences; Directory of Industry Data Sources; Economic Abstracts; Electrical and Electronics Abstracts; Energy Information Abstracts; Energy Research Abstracts; Engineering Index Monthly; Environmental Abstracts; Environmental Periodicals Bibliography (EPB); International Abstracts in Operations Research; Operations/Research/Management Science Abstracts; Petroleum Abstracts; Physikalische Berichte; and Science Citation Index.
Taylor & Francis make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in our publications. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to, or arising out of the use of the Content. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions .