Do Environmental Accountability Policies Improve Environmental Governance Performance? A Meta-analysis

doi:10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2022.02.009

Abstract

Abstract: Whether environmental accountability policies can improve environmental governance performance is one of the hot issues in academic research in recent years， but the conclusions are not consistent. Therefore， a Meta-analysis method was used to systematically analyze 62 selected literatures on the relationship between environmental accountability and environmental governance performance. It was found that in general environmental accountability policies have a significant positive effect on environmental governance performance， and the average effect size on air， water and solid waste governance is 0.067， 0.050 and 0.094 respectively， indicating that this effect is limited. In terms of the overall effect relationship， research method， sample level and study category play a moderating role. On the whole， the differences between the conclusions of existing studies are integrated and the research evidence is provided for the improvement of environmental accountability policies in the next step.

Key words: environmental accountability; environmental governance performance; Meta-analysis

CLC Number:

D630

LIU Qiangqiang， BAO Guoxian. Do Environmental Accountability Policies Improve Environmental Governance Performance? A Meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2022, 24(2): 71-80.

References

[1]姜国俊，罗凯方. 中国环境问责制度的嬗变特征于演进逻辑——基于政策文本的分析［J］. 行政论坛， 2019(1):101-109.
[2]周黎安. 转型中的地方政府:官员激励与治理［J］. 2版. 上海: 格致出版社， 2018:162.
[3]吴建南，文婧，秦朝. 环保约谈管用吗?——来自中国城市大气污染治理的证据［J］. 中国软科学， 2018(11):66-75.
[4]吴建祖，王蓉娟. 环保约谈提高地方政府环境治理效率了吗?——基于双重差分方法的实证分析［J］. 公共管理学报， 2019，16(1):54-65.
[5]袁方成，姜煜威. “晋升锦标赛”依然有效?——以生态环境治理为讨论场域［J］. 公共管理与政策评论， 2020，9(3):62-73.
[6]冉冉. “压力型体制”下的政治激励与地方环境治理［J］. 经济社会体制比较， 2013(3):111-118.
[7]Zeng X G，Niu M C. Evaluation of Urban Environmental Efficiency in China Under High Quality Development Conditions［J］. China Environmental Science， 2019，39(6):2667-2677.
[8]颜海娜，曾栋. 治水“最后一公里”何以难通［J］. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)， 2020(5):83-97.
[9]梅赐琪，刘志林. 行政问责与政策行为从众: “十一五”节能目标实施进度地区间差异考察［J］. 中国人口·资源与环境， 2012(12):127-134.
[10]Liang J Q，Langbein L. Performance Management， High-powered Incentives， and Environmental Policies in China［J］. International Public Management Journal， 2015，18(3):346-385.
[11]马亮. 绩效排名、政府响应与环境治理: 中国城市空气污染控制的实证研究［J］. 南京社会科学， 2016(8):66-73.
[12]袁凯华，李后建，林章悦. 约束性考核促进了官员的减排激励吗［J］. 当代经济科学， 2014(6):1-10.
[13]赵琳，唐珏，陈诗一. 环保管理体制垂直化改革的环境治理效应［J］. 世界经济文汇， 2019(2):100-120.
[14]郝亮，黄宝荣，苏利阳，等. 环保约谈对政策执行“中梗阻”的疏通机制研究: 以临沂市为例［J］. 中国环境管理研究， 2017(1):75-80.
[15]刘张立，吴建南. 中央环保督察改善空气质量了吗?——基于双重差分模型的实证研究［J］. 公共行政评论， 2019(2):23-42.
[16]王玲，刘相锋，熊艳. 中央环保督察与空气污染治理——基于地级城市微观面板数据的实证分析［J］. 中国工业经济， 2019(10):5-22.
[17]涂正革，邓辉，谌仁俊，等. 中央环保督察的环境经济效益: 来自河北省试点的证据［J］. 经济评论， 2020(1):3-16.
[18]包国宪，刘强强. 中国国家治理中的循证逻辑: 理论框架与研究议程［J］. 南京社会科学， 2021(1):75-83.
[19]Homberg F，McCarthy D，Tabvuma V. A Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Public Service Motivation and Job Satisfaction［J］. Public Administration Review， 2015，75(5):711-722.
[20]Awan S，Bel G，Esteve M. The Benefits of PSM: an Oasis or a Mirage［J］. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory， 2020，30(4):619-635.
[21]张平，刘伟明. 公共服务动机如何影响工作绩效: 促进还是干扰?——来自元分析的证据［J］. 东北大学学报(社会科学版)， 2020，22(4):47-56.
[22]George B，Monster J，Walker R M. Does Strategic Planning Improve Organizational Performance?a Meta-analysis［J］. Public Administration Review， 2015，75(5):810-819.
[23]Wit A，Bekkers B. Government Support and Charitable Donations: a Meta-analysis of the Crowding-out Hypothesis［J］. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory， 2017，27(2):301-319.
[24]Gerrish E. The Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: a Meta-analysis［J］. Public Administration Review， 2016，76(1):48-66.
[25]Acciai C，Capano G. Policy Instruments at Work: a Meta-analysis of Their Applications［J］. Public Administration， 2021，99(1):118-136.
[26]Cantarelli P，Belardinelli P，Belle N. A Meta-analysis of Job Satisfaction Correlates in the Public Administration Literature［J］. Review of Public Personnel Administration， 2016，36(2):115-144.
[27]Wirtz B W，Daiser P. A Meta-analysis of Empirical E-government Research and Its Future Implications［J］. International Review of Administration Science， 2018，84(1):144-163.
[28]Lu J H. Fear the Government? a Meta-analysis of the Impact of Government Funding on Nonprofit Advocacy Engagement［J］. American Review of Public Administration， 2018，48(3):203-218.
[29]Churchill S A，Ugur M，Yew S L. Government Education Expenditures and Economic Growth: a Meta-analysis［J］. The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics， 2017，17(2):109-115.
[30]卫志民，于松浩. 分权改革与公共支出偏好: 一项Meta分析［J］. 福建论坛， 2020(12):87-98.［31］王秋石，关阵. 中国地方政府债务促进了经济增长吗?——一个元分析［J］. 公共管理与政策评论， 2021，10(3):107-122.［32］Stanley T D. Wheat Form Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review［J］. Journal of Economic Perspectives， 2001，15(3):131-150.［33］Jessica G，Julia K，Shinichi N，et al. Meta-analysis and the Science of Research Synthesis［J］. Nature， 2018，555(8):175-182.［34］彭俞超，顾雷雷. 经济学中的META回归分析［J］. 经济学动态， 2014(2):126-131.［35］杨扬，沈志超，靳纯桥. 发表偏移的原因、后果与预防研究［J］. 编辑学报， 2002，14(3):170-172.［36］陈立敏，王小瑕. 国际化与绩效提升: 基于Meta整合与Meta回归两种方法的研究［J］. 世界经济， 2017(2):101-126.［37］彭铭刚. 环境垂直管理体制对改善空气质量的因果效应评估［J］. 统计与决策， 2018(22):56-59.［38］王蓉娟，吴建祖. 环保约谈制度何以有效?——基于29个案例的模糊集定性比较分析［J］. 中国人口·资源与环境， 2019(12):103-111.［39］刘帅，杨刚强. 环境规制竞争与污染治理［J］. 首都经济贸易大学学报， 2019(2):72-81.［40］沈坤荣，金刚. 中国地方政府环境治理的政策绩效——基于“河长制”演进的研究［J］. 中国社会科学， 2018(5):92-115.