Which works better? Comparing the environmental outcomes of different forms of intergovernmental collaboration in China's air pollution control

ABSTRACT

While collaborative governance has been widely applied to address environmental problems, little is known about the environmental outcomes of collaborations. Drawing on the institutional collective action (ICA) framework, this study constructs a framework that links different forms of collaboration, defined by different levels of central intervention, to environmental outcomes. We argue that the outcome of a particular form of collaboration is a function of its effectiveness and the level of complexity the collaboration faces. When the effectiveness of a collaboration form matches the complexity faced by the collaboration, it is more likely to achieve better environmental outcomes. Using city-level air quality data and the weighted fixed effect difference-in-difference approach, we find results that strongly support our arguments. This research contributes to the understanding of the environmental outcomes of collaborations and provides practical insights for public managers to design intergovernmental collaborations.

KEYWORDS:

• Intergovernmental collaborations
• air pollution control
• central intervention
• environmental outcomes
• China

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Available at: http://www.mee.gov.cn/zcwj/gwywj/201811/t20181129_676555.shtml

2 Available at: http://www.gd.gov.cn/gkmlpt/content/0/138/post_138591.html#6

3 See an official review of collaboration in air pollution control in the PRD region at: http://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/xcjy/shxc/201909/t20190909_733028.shtml

4 Ibid.

5 http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2009-04/30/content_1300487.htm

6 http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2014-01/07/content_2561677.htm

7 Strictly speaking, the level of central intervention in the YRD collaboration (2014-2016) is higher than that in the PRD collaboration (2014-2016).

8 http://www.mee.gov.cn/ywdt/hjywnews/201703/t20170330_409037.shtml

9 Ibid.

10 More information can be found at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2018-07/11/content_5305678.htm.

11 Data is available at: https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/sdei-global-annual-gwr-pm2-5-modis-misr-seawifs-aod.

12 http://www.mee.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bwj/201708/t20170831_420710.htm

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by National Social Science Fund of China under Grant [18CGL036].

Notes on contributors

Shaowei Chen

Shaowei Chen ([email protected]) is a professor in the School of Public Administration, Hunan University. He received his Ph.D. degree in Public Administration from Tsinghua University in 2017. His main research interests are in environmental policy & politics, central-local relations in China, and quantitative research methods.

Xinfeng Zhao

Xinfeng Zhao ([email protected]) is a professor in the College of Education, Capital Normal University. He received his Ph.D. degree in Public Management from Peking University in 2008. His main research interests are in collaborative environmental governance, climate change, and public policy.

Lingyi Zhou

Lingyi Zhou ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University. She received her Ph.D. degree in Public Administration from Tsinghua University in 2019. Her main research interests are in collaborative governance, environmental policy, and public perception.