Environmental Performance Assessment Pressure And Financial Sustainability

In the past 30 years,my country’s economy has experienced miraculous growth.This phenomenon is called the"Chinese Mystery" by Allen et al.,because according to my country’s natural endowment resources,my country is far from technology,education,etc.Inferior to other countries,there is no reasonable explanation for this rapid growth.Zhou Li’an’s "Political Promotion Championship" theoretically explained the reason behind this scientifically.After the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee,my country shifted the focus of government work to local economic construction,and my country’s central government’s assessment method for local officials has been long-term The use of"single-dimensional GDP"assessment has essentially changed the assessment standards.However,under the assessment of "single-dimensional GDP" political performance,there are also many problems.Local officials ignore those indicators that are not being investigated,causing resource damage and loss.In order to achieve good results in their political performance,local officials will increase government expenditures to invest in local infrastructure during their tenure,and carry out repetitive construction in some places.The convergence of the industrial structure has become increasingly serious,resulting in natural resources and environmental damage.Destruction,waste of energy and materials,this situation is more obvious in economically backward places.After the central government added environmental indicators to the evaluation of officials in 2005,local officials immediately adopted corresponding policies to cater to policy needs.The eastern and western regions have closed many and stopped construction of many high-polluting projects.At present,my country has shifted from rapid economic growth to a stage of high-quality development.Previously,my country’s "single-dimensional GDP"official assessment method did bring about the rapid development of China’s economy,but this method is obviously not fully adapted to the current Chinese national conditions.Because this assessment method is extremely harmful to China’s environment,the "Twelfth Five-Year Plan" clearly puts forward the theme of "green development",focusing on "building a resource-saving and environment-friendly society." In 2005,my country changed the assessment method of local officials of"one-dimensional GDP",but added environmental indicators to the assessment system of local officials.What impact did this change have?Incorporating environmental indicators into the performance appraisal of local officials has changed the"one-dimensional GDP"appraisal method of traditional officials,and will this affect local fiscal revenue and expenditure?Analyzed from the perspective of economic thinking,changes in the performance appraisal of local officials will shift the focus of local officials’ work.What kind of impact will this have on local fiscal revenues and expenditures?Based on this background,this article first sorts out and elaborates the implementation plan of my country’s two control areas and the implementation plan of "environmental performance target" assessment.After that,this paper uses the statistical data of 275 cities in China from 2003 to 2011 as a sample,and uses the identification strategy of the double difference method(DID or DD)to use the two control areas and the non-two control areas as the experimental control group.Random experimental analysis,under this analytical framework,verified the effectiveness of the"environmental performance target" assessment policy and further explored the impact on the sustainability of local finances,and explored the impact of the "environmental performance target" assessment mechanism on sulfur dioxide and local finance.Sustainability and the measurement of fiscal sustainability indicators.This article uses the Maastricht Treaty adopted by the European Union to calculate.This paper also conducts a robustness test on the benchmark regression results and demonstrates the impact mechanism of the"environmental performance target" assessment system on the level of fiscal sustainability.At the same time,this paper also analyzes the heterogeneity of the regression results of this paper from the perspective of regional factors.The research results of this article are as follows:First,after the implementation of the "Environmental Performance Target",the"Environmental Performance Target" policy has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 17.5%,indicating that this policy does limit sulfur dioxide emissions and the policy effect is obvious.Second,after the implementation of the"Environmental Performance Target",the "Environmental Performance Target" policy has increased the sustainability of local finances by 1.05%,indicating that after the "single-core GDP" performance target is changed to the "Environmental Performance Target’,the local financial The level of sustainability has risen significantly.Third,from the perspective of the mechanism that affects the level of fiscal sustainability.In the short term,the significant impact of this policy on fiscal sustainability indicators is not caused by environmental improvements,but by officials’ actions in the process of improving the environment.Through further analysis,this article finds that fiscal sustainability Sustained levels of increase are affected separately through the two channels of fiscal revenue and fiscal expenditure,and this article further demonstrates that this policy is to reduce the added value of the secondary industry and change the industrial structure,that is,to close the large state-owned enterprises.The polluting enterprises have thus reduced fiscal expenditures.On the other hand,this policy affects fiscal revenue by increasing foreign direct investment,and both of these internal mechanisms are partial intermediary effects,not complete intermediary effects.Fourth,this article analyzes the heterogeneity of sulfur dioxide emissions and local fiscal sustainability from the perspective of regional factors,and finds that this policy makes officials in the western region work harder to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions than those in the eastern and central regions.In terms of local fiscal sustainability,the policy effect of this policy in the eastern and central regions is more obvious than in the western regions.