IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i4d10.1007_s10668-023-03105-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Would protect the environment limit production? The analysis based on pig breeding industry in China

Author

Listed:
  • Yuzhuo Shen

    (Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences
    Northeast Agricultural University)

  • Mingzhu Nie

    (School of Economics, Heilongjiang University of Science and Technology)

  • Jiangxin Liu

    (Northeast Agricultural University)

  • Gangyi Wang

    (Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences
    Northeast Agricultural University
    Chongqing Academy of Rural Vitalization)

Abstract

Environmental regulation would often limit production, causing conflicts between environmental protection and industrial development. The fundamental reason is the weak compatibility between environmental regulation goals and pig production goals. In order to improve the compatibility, this paper analysed how the herd structure adjusts the impact of environmental regulation on pig production based on the rational theory on small farmer. With the use of inter-provincial panel data from 2008 to 2020 in China, a dual moderation effect model is constructed for the empirical analysis. The results show that: (1) Strengthening environmental regulation would inhibit pig production. (2) Herb structure not only affects pig production directly, but also the nonlinear impact of environmental regulation on pig production, which would be used as a specific guideline to improve the compatibility. (3) Moderate adjustment on herb structure would help to weaken the inhibitory effect of environmental regulation on pig production and realize the sustainable development of the pig industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuzhuo Shen & Mingzhu Nie & Jiangxin Liu & Gangyi Wang, 2024. "Would protect the environment limit production? The analysis based on pig breeding industry in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 9501-9523, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03105-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03105-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03105-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03105-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azzeddine Azzam & Gibson Nene & Karina Schoengold, 2015. "Hog Industry Structure and the Stringency of Environmental Regulation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(3), pages 333-358, September.
    2. Mackenzie, S.G. & Wallace, M. & Kyriazakis, I., 2017. "How effective can environmental taxes be in reducing the environmental impact of pig farming systems?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 131-144.
    3. Lee, Jaegul & Veloso, Francisco M. & Hounshell, David A., 2011. "Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1240-1252.
    4. Picazo-Tadeo, Andres J. & Reig-Martinez, Ernest, 2007. "Farmers' costs of environmental regulation: Reducing the consumption of nitrogen in citrus farming," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 312-328, March.
    5. Chih‐Ching Yang & Ching‐Kai Hsiao & Ming‐Miin Yu, 2008. "Technical efficiency and impact of environmental regulations in farrow‐to‐finish swine production in Taiwan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(1), pages 51-61, July.
    6. Ye, Bing & Lin, Ling, 2020. "Environmental regulation and responses of local governments," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Lijie Wang & Jianjun Lu, 2019. "Analysis of the Social Welfare Effect of Environmental Regulation Policy Based on a Market Structure Perspective and Consumer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    9. Simpson, R. David & Bradford, Robert III, 1996. "Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 282-300, May.
    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. Earnhart, Dietrich & Germeshausen, Robert & von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2022. "Effects of information-based regulation on financial outcomes: Evidence from the European Union's public emission registry," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    3. Qiwen Dai & Huihua Huang & Xiaoqi Zhang & Yumin Su & Cheyuan Liu & Qiangyi Li, 2022. "Mediation Effect of Corporate Tax Burden and the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and Firm Performance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Xin Nie & Jianxian Wu & Han Wang & Lihua Li & Chengdao Huang & Weijuan Li & Zhuxia Wei, 2022. "Booster or Stumbling Block? The Role of Environmental Regulation in the Coupling Path of Regional Innovation under the Porter Hypothesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Dominique Bianco, 2022. "Does entrepreneurial behaviour matter for the strong Porter hypothesis?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 42(2), pages 867-876.
    6. Andong Liu & Xuesong Gu, 2020. "Environmental Regulation, Technological Progress and Corporate Profit: Empirical Research Based on the Threshold Panel Regression," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Reis, Anabela & Heitor, Manuel & Amaral, Miguel & Mendonça, Joana, 2016. "Revisiting industrial policy: Lessons learned from the establishment of an automotive OEM in Portugal," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 195-205.
    8. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    9. Seokbeom Kwon & Jan Youtie & Alan Porter & Nils Newman, 2024. "How does regulatory uncertainty shape the innovation process? Evidence from the case of nanomedicine," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 262-302, February.
    10. Yu-Hong Ai & Di-Yun Peng & Huan-Huan Xiong, 2021. "Impact of Environmental Regulation Intensity on Green Technology Innovation: From the Perspective of Political and Business Connections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-23, April.
    11. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    12. Guo, Baishu & Jin, Gui, 2025. "Beyond the land quantity: Rethinking the role of land quality in agriculture from the efficiency perspective," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    13. Claudia Ranocchia & Luca Lambertini, 2021. "Porter Hypothesis vs Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Can There Be Environmental Policies Getting Two Eggs in One Basket?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(1), pages 177-199, January.
    14. Adel Ben Youssef & Ludovic Ragni, 1998. "Politiques environnementales stratégiques et concurrence internationale : théorie et évidences," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 83(1), pages 81-98.
    15. Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz & J. Alberto Aragon-Correa & Andrew G. Earle, 2022. "Innovating for Good in Opportunistic Contexts: The Case for Firms’ Environmental Divergence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 705-721, April.
    16. Rik Rozendaal & Herman Vollebergh, 2025. "Policy-Induced Innovation in Clean Technologies: Evidence from the Car Market," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(3), pages 565-598.
    17. Chu, Baoju & Dong, Yizhe & Liu, Yaorong & Ma, Diandian & Wang, Tianju, 2024. "Does China's emission trading scheme affect corporate financial performance: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    18. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Stéphane Lhuillery & Antoine Schoen, 2017. "The determinants of cleaner energy innovations of the world’s largest firms: the impact of firm learning and knowledge capital," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 311-333, May.
    19. Sun, Xiuli & Li, Haizheng & Ghosal, Vivek, 2020. "Firm-level human capital and innovation: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Peter Michaelis & Thomas Ziesemer, 2013. "The impact of policy diffusion on optimal emission taxes," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(3), pages 259-270, July.

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03105-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.