← 論文一覧に戻る

Does Carbon Pricing Outperform Command-and-Control Regulation? Firm-Level Evidence from Korea’s Dual Regulatory Framework

炭素価格付けは命令統制型規制より優れているか？韓国の二重規制枠組みからの企業レベル証拠 (AI 翻訳)

Pyung Kim

SocArXiv (OSF Preprints)プレプリント2026-04-29#炭素価格経営インパクト: コスト削減対象セクター: cross_sector
原典: https://osf.io/ac4wb

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

韓国の二重規制（TMSとETS）を利用し、炭素価格付けと命令統制型規制の効果を企業レベルで比較。差の差分析により、ETS対象企業はエネルギー使用を5.8〜8.8%、炭素排出を7.3〜8.5%削減。市場志向の強いフェーズで効果が増大し、インセンティブ設計の重要性を示す。

English

Exploiting Korea's dual regulatory framework (TMS and ETS), this study compares carbon pricing and command-and-control regulation at the firm level. Difference-in-differences estimates show ETS firms reduced energy use by 5.8-8.8% and carbon emissions by 7.3-8.5%, with stronger effects in more market-oriented phases, highlighting the role of incentive-based policy design.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

日本ではカーボンプライシング導入が議論されており、本論文の実証結果は制度設計への示唆を与える。特に、市場志向の強いフェーズでの効果増大は、日本の排出量取引制度や炭素賦課金の設計に参考となる。

In the global GX context

This paper provides rigorous empirical evidence on the effectiveness of carbon pricing versus command-and-control, directly relevant to global debates on policy instrument choice. Its findings on phase-specific effects inform the design of ETS and carbon tax mechanisms worldwide, including the EU ETS and emerging carbon pricing initiatives.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:Provides causal evidence on carbon pricing effectiveness using a unique dual-policy setting, valuable for policy evaluation research.

🏢実務担当者:Offers insights into how carbon pricing affects firm-level energy and emission reductions, useful for corporate strategy under carbon regulations.

🏛政策担当者:Demonstrates that market-based instruments can outperform command-and-control, supporting the case for carbon pricing in policy design.

📄 Abstract（原文）

This study exploits South Korea's unique dual-policy framework to evaluate the comparative effects of carbon pricing and command-and-control regulation on firm-level environmental performance. Using a difference-in-differences design with firm-level panel data from 2011 to 2022, I compare outcomes between firms regulated under a command-and-control program (Target Management System, TMS) and those subject to a market-based carbon pricing mechanism (Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS). The results show that ETS-regulated firms reduced energy use by approximately 5.8% to 8.8% and carbon emissions by 7.3% to 8.5% across model specifications. However, the effects on carbon intensity were inconsistent. Event-study analyses suggest that these differing effects are driven by the heterogeneous timing of firm responses: immediate but short-lived reductions in energy use, persistent declines in carbon emissions, and gradual improvements in emissions efficiency. Phase-specific estimates further indicate that more market-oriented ETS phases were associated with stronger reductions in carbon emissions and intensity, underscoring the role of incentive-based policy design in enhancing environmental outcomes.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。