Does Carbon Pricing Outperform Command-and-Control Regulation? Firm-Level Evidence from Korea’s Dual Regulatory Framework
炭素価格付けは直接規制を上回るか？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
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
韓国で排出権取引（ETS）と目標管理制度（TMS）が併存する独自の二重規制を利用し、炭素価格付けと直接規制の効果を企業レベルで比較。差の差分析の結果、ETS対象企業はTMS対象企業に比べエネルギー使用量5.8～8.8%、炭素排出量7.3～8.5%削減。効果はオークションやベンチマーク配分を導入した市場志向の強い段階で顕著であり、インセンティブ設計の重要性を示す。
English
Using South Korea's unique dual regulatory framework where an ETS and a command-and-control program (TMS) operate in parallel, this study compares carbon pricing with prescriptive regulation at the firm level. Difference-in-differences analysis shows ETS firms reduced energy use by 5.8-8.8% and carbon emissions by 7.3-8.5% relative to TMS firms. Reductions are strongest in more market-oriented ETS phases with auctioning and benchmarking, highlighting the importance 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
日本では炭素価格導入が議論されているが、本論文は韓国の二重規制という独自の事例から、ETSのような市場メカニズムが直接規制より効果的であることを示す実証証拠を提供。日本の今後のカーボンプライシング設計、特にオークションやベンチマーク配分の重要性を示唆する。
In the global GX context
This paper provides rare firm-level evidence comparing carbon pricing and command-and-control regulation within the same country. It strengthens the global case for market-based climate policy and highlights that design features such as auctioning and benchmarking matter for effectiveness. Relevant for jurisdictions like the EU, China, and the US considering or expanding ETS.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides causal evidence on the relative effectiveness of carbon pricing vs. regulation using a quasi-experimental design.
🏢実務担当者:Offers insights for corporate sustainability teams on how different policy instruments may affect emission reduction requirements.
🏛政策担当者:Directly informs the debate on carbon pricing design, showing that market-oriented features like auctioning enhance effectiveness.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study exploits South Korea’s unique dual-policy, in which an emissions trading scheme (ETS) and a command-and-control program (Target Management System, TMS) operate in parallel, to compare carbon pricing with prescriptive regulation at the firm level. Using a difference-in-differences design on firm-level panel data from 2011 to 2022, I find that ETS-regulated firms reduced energy use by 5.8% to 8.8% and carbon emissions by 7.3% to 8.5% relative to TMS firms, while effects on carbon intensity were not robust. These reductions were strongest in the more market-oriented phases of the ETS, which featured allowance auctioning and benchmark-based allocation, pointing to the importance of incentive-based policy design.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ac4wb_v2first seen 2026-07-27 04:46:30
🔔 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。