The digital economy has introduced far-reaching innovations in the fields of government governance, enterprise production, and social operation. How to motivate the economic development mode towards a low-carbon and greenway transformation through the digital economy is a major issue concerning the Chinese government. However, there is scarce evidence to interpret the role mechanism of the digital economy on carbon emission efficiency from the factor misallocation scenario. Taking a database from 30 provincial-level administrative regions for the period from 2011 to 2019 in China as an example, the paper examines the effect of the digital economy on carbon emission efficiency, as well as explores its role mechanism deeply in terms of factor misallocation (capital misallocation and labor misallocation). The results suggest that there is a significant potential for the digital economy to contribute to carbon emission efficiency, as well as this finding, is valid when considering both the endogeneity issue and a series of robustness checks. Also, the digital economy can significantly contribute to carbon efficiency in both southern and northern regions, but more strongly in the northern region. Besides, the digital economy can inhibit the factor misallocation (labor misallocation and capital misallocation) level which ultimately improves carbon emission efficiency. Finally, as a digital economy, it can positively impact carbon efficiency in the long run by mitigating factor misallocation (labor misallocation and capital misallocation).

No abstract

No abstract

Green economic growth is an unavoidable choice for China’s development model, while the government-led Chinese economic development system determines that local government competition may have an essential impact on green economic growth. For this purpose, this study employs data on Chinese 272 prefecture-level cities and the system generalized method of moments (SYS-GMM) model to investigate the impact of multi-dimensional local government competition (ecological competition, service competition, economic competition, and comprehensive competition) on green economic growth. The empirical results reveal that local government competition significantly influences green economic growth, in which economic competition significantly inhibits green economic growth, and ecological competition, service competition, and comprehensive competition positively influences green economic growth. The influence mechanism indicates that economic competition, ecological competition, service competition, and comprehensive competition significantly affect green economic growth through economic agglomeration and industrial structure upgrading, respectively. Moreover, the impact of multi-dimensional local government competition on green economic growth shows significant temporal and regional heterogeneity. Therefore, policymakers should further develop a multi-dimensional local government competition target system for local government officials and moderately enhance both ecological competition and service competition that is oriented to green economic growth.

No abstract