不同碳减排政策对内外资企业竞争力的影响比较

一方面,由于我国内外资企业的生产效率和碳排放效率差距较大,不同的碳减排政策势必会对内外资企业的市场竞争力带来不同的影响;另一方面,已有文献大多在完全竞争的框架下对不同减排政策的实施效应进行分析,而事实上我国碳减排政策所覆盖的产业大多是不完全竞争甚至是寡头垄断。由此,我们基于内外资企业存在低碳技术差距这一新的研究视角,通过构建两阶段博弈模型来比较分析相同碳强度减排目标下强制减排、碳税与碳交易等三种减排政策对内外资企业产量、市场份额及其社会总产量的影响,从而有利于我国从妥善处理内外资关系的角度制定更有针对性的减排政策。结果表明:(1)三种减排政策都降低了内资企业的产量和市场份额,且内外资企业低碳技术差距越大时内资企业的市场份额下降越多。(2)强制减排降低了社会总产量,碳税和碳交易同等幅度地减少了社会总产量。(3)最优税率仅仅是减排目标的增函数。(4)市场出清的碳交易价格和碳税税率相等,且其数值仅与减排目标正相关,而与碳排放权的分配无关。(5)碳交易比碳税更有利于"保护"内资企业的市场竞争力。相关政策启示如下:(1)尽快确定普适的碳排放核算标准,核算出各行业内外资企业的低碳技术差距;(2)尽快在全国范围内启动碳交易机制,建立促进缩小内外资企业低碳技术的机制;(3)在碳交易市场条件不成熟的行业可以率先推出碳税政策;(4)政府应该根据内外资企业低碳技术差距来对不同行业采取最适宜的减排政策,而非"一刀切"。

Comparative analysis of effects of different carbon regulation policies on market competition between domestic-funded and foreign-funded companies

On the one hand,there is a big difference in production efficiency and carbon emissions efficiency between Chinese domestic-funded and foreign-funded companies.On the other hand,most researches use the framework of perfect competition,but in fact the majority of industries covered by carbon regulation policy are imperfect competition or even oligopoly.Based on the fact that there is a low-carbon technology gap between the domestic-funded and foreign-funded companies,we construct a Cournot duopoly model to compare the production,market share of domestic-funded and foreign-funded companies under the scenario of command-and-control reduction policy,carbon tax and carbon emissions trading.The results are as follows:First,these policies have reduced the output and market share of domestic-funded companies,and a larger low-carbon technology gap makes a larger decline of market share for the domestic-funded companies.Second,the command-and-control reduction policy will reduce the total social productions,the carbon tax and carbon trading system will decrease the same amount to social production.Third,the optimal tax rate is only an increasing function of emission reduction targets.Fourth,when the market clearing price of carbon emission permits is equal to the carbon tax,and its value is only associated with emission reduction targets and nothing to do with the allocation of carbon emission permits.Fifth,the carbon trading system is more conducive to protect domestic-funded enterprises than the carbon tax.From what has been discussed above,we can safely draw the following policy implications.First,we need determine the universal carbon emission accounting standards as soon as possible to calculate the low-carbon technology gap of all professions between domestic-funded and foreign-funded enterprises.Second,we need activate carbon emissions trading scheme across the country and set up the system to narrow low-carbon technology gap.Third,we need give priority to develop carbon taxation policy in the industries where carbon trading system isn't mature.Fourth,the Chinese government should take suitable mitigation policies for various industries according to the low-carbon technology gap to avoid the ‘ one size fits all’.