IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i4p389-d532397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Game Theory-Based Analysis of Local Governments’ Behavioral Dissimilation in the Third-Party Soil Pollution Control under Chinese-Style Fiscal Decentralization

Author

Listed:
  • Caihua Zhou

    (School of Public Finance and Taxation, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

The participation of a third party of the environmental service enterprise theoretically increases the level and efficiency of soil pollution control in China. However, Chinese-style fiscal decentralization may have a negative impact on the behaviors of participants, especially the local government. First, this paper conducts a positioning analysis on participants of the third-party soil pollution control in China and discusses the behavioral dissimilation of the local government under fiscal decentralization. Second, taking the government’s third-party soil pollution control as a case, a two-party game model of the central government and the local government is established around the principal-agent relationship, and a tripartite game model of the central government, the local government, and the third-party enterprise is designed around the collusion between the local government and the third-party enterprise. The results show that Chinese-style fiscal decentralization may lead to the behavioral dissimilation of local governments, that is, they may choose not to implement or passively implement the third-party control, and choose to conspire with third-party enterprises. Improving the benefits from implementing the third-party control of local governments and third-party enterprises, enhancing the central government’s supervision probability and capacity, and strengthening the central government’s punishment for behavioral dissimilation are conducive to the implementation of the third-party soil pollution control. Finally, this study puts forward policy suggestions on dividing the administrative powers between the central and local government in third-party control, building appraisal systems for the local government’s environmental protection performance, constructing environmental regulation mechanisms involving the government, market and society, and formulating the incentive and restraint policies for the participants in the third-party soil pollution control.

Suggested Citation

  • Caihua Zhou, 2021. "Game Theory-Based Analysis of Local Governments’ Behavioral Dissimilation in the Third-Party Soil Pollution Control under Chinese-Style Fiscal Decentralization," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:4:p:389-:d:532397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/4/389/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/4/389/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khan, Zeeshan & Ali, Shahid & Dong, Kangyin & Li, Rita Yi Man, 2021. "How does fiscal decentralization affect CO2 emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Wilson, John Douglas, 1999. "Theories of Tax Competition," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 52(2), pages 269-304, June.
    3. Li, Hongbin & Zhou, Li-An, 2005. "Political turnover and economic performance: the incentive role of personnel control in China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(9-10), pages 1743-1762, September.
    4. Cheng, Shulei & Fan, Wei & Chen, Jiandong & Meng, Fanxin & Liu, Gengyuan & Song, Malin & Yang, Zhifeng, 2020. "The impact of fiscal decentralization on CO2 emissions in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    6. Yongzheng Liu & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2015. "Public Input Competition under Stackelberg Equilibrium: A Note," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(6), pages 1022-1037, December.
    7. Wallace E. Oates & Wallace E. Oates, 2004. "Fiscal and Regulatory Competition: Theory and Evidence," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 11, pages 195-208, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. William J. Baumol & Wallace E. Oates, 1971. "The Use of Standards and Prices for Protection of the Environment," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Peter Bohm & Allen V. Kneese (ed.), The Economics of Environment, pages 53-65, Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    10. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & à vila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    11. Caihua Zhou & Hualin Xie & Xinmin Zhang, 2019. "Does Fiscal Policy Promote Third-Party Environmental Pollution Control in China? An Evolutionary Game Theoretical Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Wallace E. Oates & Robert M. Schwab, 2015. "The Window Tax: A Case Study in Excess Burden," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 163-180, Winter.
    13. Wilson, John Douglas, 1999. "Theories of Tax Competition," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 52(n. 2), pages 269-304, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caihua Zhou & Hualin Xie & Xinmin Zhang, 2019. "Does Fiscal Policy Promote Third-Party Environmental Pollution Control in China? An Evolutionary Game Theoretical Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Zhang, Junfu, 2011. "Interjurisdictional competition for FDI: The case of China's "development zone fever"," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 145-159, March.
    3. Ran Tao & Fubing Su & Mingxing Liu & Guangzhong Cao, 2010. "Land Leasing and Local Public Finance in China’s Regional Development: Evidence from Prefecture-level Cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(10), pages 2217-2236, September.
    4. Sandy Fréret & Denis Maguain, 2017. "The effects of agglomeration on tax competition: evidence from a two-regime spatial panel model on French data," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(6), pages 1100-1140, December.
    5. Tidiane Ly, 2018. "Sub-metropolitan tax competition with household and capital mobility," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(5), pages 1129-1169, October.
    6. Zodrow, George R, 2003. "Tax Competition and Tax Coordination in the European Union," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 10(6), pages 651-671, November.
    7. Juan Tang & Fangming Qin, 2022. "Analyzing the impact of local government competition on green total factor productivity from the factor market distortion perspective: based on the three stage DEA model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(12), pages 14298-14326, December.
    8. Matthieu Leprince & Sonia Paty & Emmanuelle Reulier, 2005. "Choix d'imposition et interactions spatiales entre collectivités locales. Un test sur les départements français," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 71(1), pages 67-93.
    9. Teresa Garcia-Milà & Therese J. McGuire, 2001. "Tax incentives and the city," Economics Working Papers 631, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Dec 2001.
    10. George R. Zodrow, 2019. "Intrajurisdictional Capitalization and the Incidence of the Property Tax," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: George R Zodrow (ed.), TAXATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Selected Essays of George R. Zodrow, chapter 16, pages 489-522, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Kokovin Sergey & Zhelobodko Evgeniy, 2004. "Leviathanian Fiscal Competition in Heterogeneous Country," EERC Working Paper Series 01-219e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    12. Francisco J. Delgado & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Matías Mayor, 2015. "On The Determinants Of Local Tax Rates: New Evidence From Spain," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(2), pages 351-368, April.
    13. Lars P. Feld & Horst Zimmermann & Thomas Döring, 2003. "Föderalismus, Dezentralität und Wirtschaftswachstum," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 72(3), pages 361-377.
    14. Sam Bucovetsky & Michael Smart, 2006. "The Efficiency Consequences of Local Revenue Equalization: Tax Competition and Tax Distortions," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 8(1), pages 119-144, January.
    15. Stanley L. Winer & George Tridimas & Walter Hettich, 2007. "Social Welfare and Collective Goods Coercion in Public Economics," Carleton Economic Papers 07-03, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    16. Benoît Le Maux, 2009. "Governmental behavior in representative democracy: a synthesis of the theoretical literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 447-465, December.
    17. Sergii Slukhai, 2009. "Inter-Location Small Business Tax Rate Variation in Ukraine: What Is Behind It?," Financial Theory and Practice, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 33(1), pages 49-71.
    18. Gilles Duranton & Laurent Gobillon & Henry G. Overman, 2011. "Assessing the Effects of Local Taxation using Microgeographic Data," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(555), pages 1017-1046, September.
    19. Massimo Bordignon & Floriana Cerniglia & Federico Revelli, 2002. "In Search for Yardstick Competition: Property Tax Rates and Electoral Behavior in Italian Cities," CESifo Working Paper Series 644, CESifo.
    20. Glazer, Amihai & Kanniainen, Vesa & Poutvaara, Panu, 2008. "Income taxes, property values, and migration," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 915-923, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:4:p:389-:d:532397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.