Few studies explored the interaction effect between policy instruments and the policy environment on environmental governance. Based on policy instrument theory, this paper conducts fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore the combined effect of policy instruments and the policy environment on the environmental governance efficiency of local governance. This study found four effective configurations of local government environmental governance, which can be summarized as the mandatory mode and the cooperative mode, and three inefficient configurations that can be summarized as the out-of-control mode. The results show that the regions adopting the mandatory mode are economically underdeveloped, while the regions using the cooperative mode are developed. Besides, local government competition leads to the softening of policy instruments, while government-enterprise collusion exacerbates the failure of environmental policy instruments. This paper summarizes the effective modes and reveals the reasons for the low efficiency of local government environmental governance in China. The conclusions provide not only empirical evidence for the study of policy instrument theory but also beneficial insights for the selection of environmental policy instruments and environmental governance practice.
TangJYangFWeiF. The average environmental efficiency technique and its application to Chinese provincial panel data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2022. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-18751-9
2.
WeiWDingSZhengS,et al.Environmental efficiency evaluation of China's power industry based on the two-stage network slack-based measure model. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 12650.
3.
BairdJSchultzLPlummerR,et al.Emergence of collaborative environmental governance: what are the causal mechanisms?Environ Manag2019; 63: 16–31.
4.
OhnoT. Understanding diverse trajectories of environmental governance studies: a citation network analysis. Environment Systems and Decisions2019; 39: 214–228.
5.
GuttmanDYoungOJingY, et al.Environmental governance in China: interactions between the state and “nonstate actors”. J Environ Manag2018; 220: 126–135.
6.
ElmoreRF. Instruments and strategy in public policy. Review of Policy Research1987; 7: 174–186.
7.
LuSLiSZhouW. Does government subsidy stimulate or shackle new energy industry efficiency? Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2022. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-18273-w
8.
WuM. The impact of eco-environmental regulation on green energy efficiency in China - based on spatial economic analysis. Energy & Environment2022. doi:10.1177/0958305X211072435
9.
ZhangHXuTFengC. Does public participation promote environmental efficiency? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment of environmental information disclosure in China. Energy Economics2022; 108: 105871.
10.
FissPC. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad Manage J2011; 54: 393–420.
11.
FissPC. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad Manage Rev2007; 32: 1180–1198.
12.
BressersHKlokPJ. Fundamentals for a theory of policy instruments. Int J Soc Econ1988; 15: 22–41.
13.
LiaoZ. Environmental policy instruments, environmental innovation and the reputation of enterprises. J Cleaner Prod2018; 171: 1111–1117.
14.
PengHShenNYingH,et al.Can environmental regulation directly promote green innovation behavior?—— based on situation of industrial agglomeration. J Cleaner Prod2021a; 314: 128044.
15.
ZhaoXYinHZhaoY. Impact of environmental regulations on the efficiency and CO2 emissions of power plants in China. Appl Energy2015; 149: 238–247.
16.
GaoDLiYYangQ. Can pollution charges reform promote industrial SO2 emissions reduction?—evidence from 189 China’s cities. Energy & Environment2020; 32: 96–112.
17.
LuoYSalmanMLuZ. Heterogeneous impacts of environmental regulations and foreign direct investment on green innovation across different regions in China. Sci Total Environ2021; 759: 143744.
18.
PengJXieRMaC,et al.Market-based environmental regulation and total factor productivity: evidence from Chinese enterprises. Econ Model2021b; 95: 394–407.
19.
WalterJM. The political economy of market-based and information-based environmental policies. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics2021; 15: 359–385.
20.
AboltinsRBlumbergaD. Key factors for successful implementation of energy efficiency policy instruments: a theoretical study and the case of Latvia. Environmental and Climate Technologies2019; 23: 187–206.
21.
MilhoranceCSabourinELe CoqJ-F,et al.Unpacking the policy mix of adaptation to climate change in Brazil’s semiarid region: enabling instruments and coordination mechanisms. Climate Policy2020; 20: 593–608.
22.
LiuXXieFWangH,et al.The impact of policy mixes on new energy vehicle diffusion in China. Clean Technol Environ Policy2021; 23: 1457–1474.
23.
LiuZVan de WalleS. What determines the government’s policy instrument choice for steering nonprofit organizations? The role of government capacity and contextual complexity. Journal of Asian Public Policy2021: 1–17.
24.
BressersHTAO'TooleLJ. The selection of policy instruments: a network-based perspective. J Public Policy1998; 18: 213–239.
25.
O'TooleLJ. Treating networks seriously: practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Adm Rev1997; 57: 45–52.
26.
ZhangNDengJAhmadF,et al.Local government competition and regional green development in China: the mediating role of environmental regulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 3485.
27.
ZhangD. Marketization, environmental regulation, and eco-friendly productivity: a Malmquist–Luenberger index for pollution emissions of large Chinese firms. J Asian Econ2021; 76: 101342.
28.
LiXHuZCaoJ,et al.The impact of environmental accountability on air pollution: a public attention perspective. Energy Policy2022; 161: 112733.
29.
LiangPHGaoN. Personnel change, legal environment and local environmental pollution. Manage World2014; 6: 65–78.
30.
ShenDXiaMZhangQ,et al.The impact of public appeals on the performance of environmental governance in China: a perspective of provincial panel data. J Cleaner Prod2019; 231: 290–296.
31.
RaginCC. The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
32.
WangH. Comparison and selection of environmental regulation policy in China: based on Bayesian model averaging approach. China Population, Resources and Environment2016; 26: 132–138.
33.
XuJWangXHeZ. Multidimensional performance appraisals, Chinese government competition and local tax administration. Economic Research Journal2019; 4: 33–48.
34.
WangXLFanGZhuH. Marketization index of China’s provinces: NERI report. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2018.
LiYZhangXZhaoX. Analysis on the spatio-temporal evolution characteristics and influencing factors of environmental information disclosure in China. China Population, Resources and Environment2020; 30: 106–114.
37.
ZhangTChenC. The effect of public participation on environmental governance in China–based on the analysis of pollutants emissions employing a provincial quantification. Sustainability2018; 10: 2302.
38.
JiaRNieH. Decentralization, collusion, and coal mine deaths. Review of Economics and Statistics2017; 99: 105–118.
39.
GuanB. Does performance pressure is a double-edged sword in local government environmental governance——empirical analysis based on public value conflict view. Journal of Public Management2020; 17: 53–69.
40.
HuWGuoYTianJ,et al.Eco-efficiency of centralized wastewater treatment plants in industrial parks: a slack-based data envelopment analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl2019; 141: 176–186.
41.
CharnesACooperWWRhodesE. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res1978; 2: 429–444.
42.
RaginCC. Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
43.
JiangYChaiG. Target-evaluation, promotion incentive and effectiveness of workplace safety evaluation——an empirical analysis of panel data in China. Journal of Public Management2017; 14: 44–58.
44.
Garcia-CastroRFrancoeurC. When more is not better: complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strateg Manage J2016; 37: 406–424.
45.
GreckhamerTFurnariSFissPC,et al.Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Org2018; 16: 482–495.
46.
XieXWangH. How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis. J Bus Res2020; 108: 29–41.
47.
LewellynKBMuller-KahleMI. The configurational effects of board monitoring and the institutional environment on CEO compensation: a country-level fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Management & Governance2016; 20: 729–757.
48.
MeuerJRupiettaCBackes-GellnerU. Layers of co-existing innovation systems. Res Policy2015; 44: 888–910.
49.
WoodsND. Interstate competition and environmental regulation: a test of the race-to-the-bottom thesis. Soc Sci Q2006; 87: 174–189.
50.
WuJDengYHuangJ,et al.Incentives and outcomes: China's environmental policy. Soc Sci Electron Publ2013; 9: 1–41.
