000249496 001__ 249496
000249496 005__ 20180123005416.0
000249496 037__ $$a450-2016-34058
000249496 037__ $$a450-2016-34146
000249496 041__ $$aen_US
000249496 084__ $$aD22
000249496 084__ $$aO13
000249496 084__ $$aP28
000249496 084__ $$aQ43
000249496 084__ $$aQ48
000249496 084__ $$aQ53
000249496 084__ $$aQ58
000249496 245__ $$aCorporate Preferences for Domestic Policy Instruments under a Sectoral Market Mechanism: A Case Study of Shanxi Province in China
000249496 260__ $$c2014-08
000249496 269__ $$a2014-08
000249496 300__ $$a31
000249496 336__ $$aWorking or Discussion Paper
000249496 520__ $$aUnderstanding companies’ preferences for various domestic policy instruments is crucial
to designing and planning Sectoral Market Mechanism (SMM) in China. Based on a
detailed overview of domestic policy instruments under SMM, this paper evaluates
corporate preferences for diverse domestic policy instruments and identifies potential
influencing factors through econometric analysis. The data were collected from 113
respondents in all 11 prefecture-level cities of Shanxi province, China. Regarding policy
instruments under the system of government receiving tradable units, corporate energy
saving potential, learning capacity and companies’ characteristics have shown significant
influences on companies’ preferences. Dissemination and the popularization of
knowledge are also important to help companies learn how to improve energy efficiency.
In terms of policy measures with voluntary installation-level targets, corporate competition
level, organizational size and ownership are the main factors influencing companies’
preferences. Reducing inequality in the distribution of responsibility is especially important
to gain companies’ support. Under the policy with mandatory installation-level targets, it
suggests that policymakers should focus on status of energy use management and
internationalization orientation. Policy instruments familiar to companies that are able to
relieve corporate financial pressures might be good options to gain higher acceptance.
Moreover, our results show that it is very important to choose an issuance frequency of
one to three years under sectoral crediting.
000249496 542__ $$fLicense granted by Greta Thormodson (thorm018@umn.edu) on 2016-11-09T20:51:30Z (GMT):

<p class="ds-paragraph">
By depositing this Content ("Content") in AgEcon Search, I agree that I am 
solely responsible for any consequences of uploading this Content to AgEcon 
Search and making it publicly available, and I represent and warrant that:

I am either the sole creator and the owner of the copyrights and all other 
rights in the Content; or, without obtaining another’s permission, I have the 
right to deposit the Content in an archive such as AgEcon Search.

To the extent that any portions of the Content are not my own creation, they 
are used with the copyright holder’s express permission or as permitted by law.
 Additionally, the Content does not infringe the copyrights or other 
intellectual property rights of another, nor does the Content violate any 
laws or another’s rights of privacy or publicity.

The Content contains no restricted, private, confidential, or otherwise 
protected data or information that should not be publicly shared.

I understand that AgEcon Search will do its best to provide perpetual access
 to my Content. In order to support these efforts, I grant the Regents of the
 University of Minnesota ("University"), through AgEcon Search, the following
 non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, world-wide rights and licenses:

to access, reproduce, distribute and publicly display the Content, in whole
 or in part, in order to secure, preserve and make it publicly available, and

to make derivative works based upon the Content in order to migrate the
 Content to other media or formats, or to preserve its public access.

These terms do not transfer ownership of the copyright(s) in the Content.
 These terms only grant to the University the limited license outlined above.
</p>
000249496 650__ $$aAgricultural and Food Policy
000249496 650__ $$aMarketing
000249496 6531_ $$aSectoral market mechanism
000249496 6531_ $$aDomestic policy instruments
000249496 6531_ $$aPolicy preference
000249496 6531_ $$aCompany
000249496 6531_ $$aChina
000249496 700__ $$aGao, Shuai
000249496 700__ $$aCai, Wenjia
000249496 700__ $$aLiu, Wenling
000249496 700__ $$aWang, Can
000249496 700__ $$aZhang, ZhongXiang
000249496 8564_ $$s1286521$$uhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/249496/files/ccep1414.pdf
000249496 887__ $$ahttp://purl.umn.edu/249496
000249496 909CO $$ooai:ageconsearch.umn.edu:249496$$pGLOBAL_SET
000249496 912__ $$nSubmitted by Greta Thormodson (thorm018@umn.edu) on 2016-11-09T20:57:21Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
ccep1414.pdf: 1286521 bytes, checksum: 7bc657717ccba8fd9039d8e6835423d5 (MD5)
000249496 912__ $$nMade available in DSpace on 2016-11-09T20:57:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ccep1414.pdf: 1286521 bytes, checksum: 7bc657717ccba8fd9039d8e6835423d5 (MD5)
  Previous issue date: 2014-08
000249496 982__ $$gAustralian National University>Centre for Climate Economics & Policy (CCEP)>Working Papers
000249496 980__ $$a450