1 Introduction
2 Link to the literature
2.1 Research on digital economy development
2.2 Research on carbon inequality
2.3 Research on the nexus between the digital economy and inequality
2.4 Literature gaps
3 Methodology and data
3.1 Methodology
3.2 Variables and data
Fig. 1 The level of CI in China during the period 2006-2019 |
Table 1 The framework of comprehensive digital economy indication system |
Side | Measurement | Property |
---|---|---|
Supply side | Number of employees in software and information technology services industry | positive |
Salaries of employees in software and information technology services industry | positive | |
Postal Business volume | positive | |
Telecommunications business volume | positive | |
Number of domain names | positive | |
Number of websites | positive | |
Number of web pages | positive | |
Number of enterprises with e-commerce transaction activities | positive | |
Software business export | positive | |
Demand side | Mobile phone penetration rate | positive |
Internet penetration rate | positive | |
Number of internet users | positive | |
Number of broadband internet port | positive | |
Number of broadband internet users | positive | |
Mobile internet access traffic | positive | |
Number of computers used per hundred people | positive | |
Software business revenue | positive | |
Information technology service revenue | positive |
Fig. 2 The level of DED in each province in China during the period 2006-2019 |
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the variables |
Variable | Mean | Std. Dev | Min | Median | Max | Unit | Definitions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
𝐶𝐼 | 0.0518 | 0.0797 | 0.0000 | 0.0186 | 0.5443 | / | Inequality of carbon emissions between urban and rural areas |
𝐷𝐸𝐷 | 0.0953 | 0.1116 | 0.0062 | 0.0530 | 0.8511 | / | The development level of digital economy |
𝐺𝐷𝑃 | 1.91e + 04 | 1.78e + 04 | 585.2000 | 1.33e + 04 | 1.08e + 05 | 100 million yuan | Gross national product |
𝑆𝐸𝑅 | 1.1877 | 0.6627 | 0.5271 | 1.0360 | 5.2340 | % | The proportion of added value in the tertiary industry to that in the secondary industry |
𝑈𝑅𝑃 | 1.6285 | 1.6173 | 0.3784 | 1.1332 | 8.6230 | % | The proportion of urban population to rural population |
𝐹𝐷𝐼 | 1.37e + 05 | 2.36e + 05 | 2000.0000 | 4.84e + 04 | 1.95e + 06 | 100 million yuan | Foreign direct investment |
Mean refers to the average value of the variables, Std. Dev. represents standard deviation, Min, Median, and Max indicate the minimum, median, and maximum values of the variables, respectively |
Fig. 3 The distribution characteristics of each variable |
4 Results analysis
4.1 Panel cointegration test
4.2 Baseline regression results
Table 3 Baseline regression results of the impact of DED on CI |
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
𝑙𝑛𝐶𝐼𝑖,𝑡−1 | 0.5191*** (83.1572) | 0.5081*** (47.5466) | 0.5360*** (50.1183) | 0.4789*** (43.5007) |
𝑙𝑛𝐷𝐸𝐷 | -0.3296*** (-3.0423) | -0.7779*** (-8.5472) | -0.3628** (-2.2074) | -0.6310*** (-2.9258) |
𝑙𝑛𝐺𝐷𝑃 | 0.7945*** (5.6258) | 0.9547*** (15.1817) | 0.8692*** (4.5032) | 1.0553*** (8.4698) |
𝑙𝑛𝑆𝐸𝑅 | 1.1764*** (5.1665) | 0.9841*** (4.5159) | 0.9746** (2.3394) | |
𝑙𝑛𝑈𝑅𝑃 | -1.0874*** (-9.3007) | -1.3403*** (-5.8747) | ||
𝑙𝑛𝐹𝐷𝐼 | 0.3598*** (2.8497) | |||
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 | -10.4948*** (-6.6909) | -13.2750*** (-16.0637) | -11.0463*** (-4.9314) | -17.5607*** (-11.8244) |
𝐴𝑅(1) | 0.0109 | 0.0122 | 0.0108 | 0.0137 |
𝐴𝑅(2) | 0.2531 | 0.2546 | 0.2462 | 0.2621 |
𝑆𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛 | 0.9986 | 0.9972 | 0.8008 | 0.9996 |
*** and ** indicate statistical significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively; the values in parentheses represent t statistics |
4.3 Robustness tests
Table 4 Robustness tests using alternative control variables |
Variable | (1) | (2) |
---|---|---|
𝑙𝑛𝐶𝐼𝑖,𝑡−1 | 0.5379*** (46.8711) | 0.5373*** (45.7472) |
𝑙𝑛𝐷𝐸𝐷 | -0.6814*** (-5.0701) | -0.5446*** (-3.3930) |
𝑙𝑛𝐺𝐷𝑃 | 0.8871*** (4.8459) | 0.6912*** (3.3471) |
𝑙𝑛𝑆𝐸𝑅 | 0.9584*** (5.3801) | 1.1384*** (5.0257) |
𝑙𝑛𝑈𝑅𝑃 | -0.7519*** (-3.1978) | -0.7696*** (-4.3092) |
𝑙𝑛𝑇𝑅𝐴 | 0.2541*** (2.9821) | |
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 | -11.3830*** (-5.8448) | -11.9373*** (-6.0578) |
𝐴𝑅(1) | 0.0110 | 0.0110 |
𝐴𝑅(2) | 0.2434 | 0.2422 |
𝑆𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛 | 0.7711 | 0.8108 |
*** indicates statistical significance at the 1% level; the values in parentheses represent t statistics |
4.4 Heterogeneous effect analysis
Table 5 Heterogeneous results by different capital characteristics of provinces |
Variable | High human capital | Low human capital | High social capital | Low social capital |
---|---|---|---|---|
𝑙𝑛𝐶𝐼𝑖,𝑡−1 | 0.7435*** (8.3170) | 0.1305*** (8.6246) | 0.6094*** (12.0802) | 0.1455*** (3.3315) |
𝑙𝑛𝐷𝐸𝐷 | 0.3662 (0.6925) | -1.3905*** (-7.7302) | 0.5697 (1.5362) | -4.5686*** (-10.1446) |
𝑙𝑛𝐺𝐷𝑃 | -0.1355 (-0.2960) | 1.7373*** (8.4292) | -1.2761*** (-3.4078) | 1.8676*** (5.1698) |
𝑙𝑛𝑆𝐸𝑅 | -1.5258** (-2.1338) | -1.1481 (-0.8313) | 0.1894 (0.4237) | 1.7613*** (3.4554) |
𝑙𝑛𝑈𝑅𝑃 | 0.7696 (0.5549) | -1.4230*** (-4.8980) | -1.6162*** (-3.4631) | 3.8284*** (6.9190) |
𝑙𝑛𝐹𝐷𝐼 | 0.2764 (0.5866) | 1.3495*** (3.4307) | 0.5497 (1.3734) | 2.0061*** (15.0558) |
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 | -2.4687 (-0.2863) | -36.1704*** (-9.3924) | 6.5416 (1.2405) | -53.5770*** (-13.6984) |
𝐴𝑅(1) | 0.0049 | 0.0639 | 0.0068 | 0.0950 |
𝐴𝑅(2) | 0.7046 | 0.2844 | 0.6491 | 0.1162 |
𝑆𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.9990 | 0.9995 |
***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; the values in parentheses represent t statistics |
5 Further discussion
5.1 Moderating effect analysis
Table 6 Results of the moderating role of rural resident disposable income in the DED-CI nexus |
Variable | -1 | -2 | -3 |
---|---|---|---|
$lnCI_{i,t-1}$ | 0.4789*** (43.5007) | 0.5057*** (74.0685) | 0.3805*** (18.2142) |
$lnDED$ | -0.6310*** (-2.9258) | -0.4936** (-2.0867) | |
$lnRRDI$ | -1.2168*** (-4.1067) | ||
$lnDED*lnRRDI$ | -0.0613*** (-3.4482) | ||
$lnGDP$ | 1.0553*** (8.4698) | 1.3648*** (6.7739) | -0.6119 (-0.8450) |
$lnSER$ | 0.9746** (2.3394) | 1.8319*** (7.0902) | 0.1736 (0.3454) |
$lnURP$ | -1.3403*** (-5.8747) | -0.6953** (-2.4882) | 2.3787 (1.2925) |
$lnFDI$ | 0.3598*** (2.8497) | 0.2850*** (2.6732) | 0.3734*** (4.0639) |
$Constant$ | -17.5607*** (-11.8244) | 15.6693 | -2.7200 (-0.3879) |
$AR$ (1) | 0.0137 | 0.0116 | 0.0153 |
$AR$ (2) | 0.2621 | 0.2461 | 0.3441 |
$Sargan$ | 0.9996 | 0.8855 | 0.8886 |
***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; the values in parentheses represent t statistics |
5.2 Mediating effect analysis
Table 7 The underlying impact channels in the relationship between DED and CI |
Explained variables: 𝑙𝑛𝐶𝐼 in (2) and (4); while 𝑙𝑛𝐸𝑅 in (1), and 𝑙𝑛𝑅𝐸𝑇 in (3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
𝑙𝑛𝐶𝐼𝑖−1,𝑡 | 0.4686*** (51.7808) | 0.4849*** (84.3798) | ||
𝑙𝑛𝐸𝑅𝑖−1,𝑡 | 0.6106*** (24.4782) | |||
𝑙𝑛𝑅𝐸𝑇𝑖−1,𝑡 | 0.8346*** (81.0994) | |||
𝑙𝑛𝐷𝐸𝐷 | 0.0100** (2.0495) | -1.3860*** (-5.2223) | 0.0846*** (5.2026) | -1.7022*** (-8.4745) |
𝑙𝑛𝐸𝑅 | -4.3869*** (-6.2190) | |||
𝑙𝑛𝑅𝐸𝑇 | -0.4176*** (-3.3344) | |||
𝑙𝑛𝐺𝐷𝑃 | 0.0851*** (7.6446) | 2.0927*** (12.7784) | 0.3233*** (11.8647) | 1.6539*** (9.9519) |
𝑙𝑛𝑆𝐸𝑅 | 0.0206** (2.4227) | 2.6043*** (8.0254) | -0.0744*** (-3.0322) | 2.3032*** (6.1920) |
𝑙𝑛𝑈𝑅𝑃 | -0.0383** (-2.0150) | -1.1510*** (-6.8762) | 0.0430 (1.1225) | -1.6153*** (-7.2323) |
𝑙𝑛𝐹𝐷𝐼 | 0.0013 (0.6116) | 0.3802** (2.0735) | -0.0973*** (-8.9068) | 0.9800*** (8.5137) |
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 | -0.9495*** (-9.6014) | -32.1657*** (-14.2872) | -0.7618*** (-3.3558) | -31.2369*** (-11.9835) |
𝐴𝑅(1) | 0.0001 | 0.0134 | 0.0026 | 0.0114 |
𝐴𝑅(2) | 0.5286 | 0.2770 | 0.5044 | 0.2131 |
𝑆𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛 | 0.7820 | 0.9997 | 0.2269 | 0.2303 |
***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; the values in parentheses represent t statistics |
Fig. 4 The relationship among DED, CI, moderator, and mediators |
6 Conclusions
Appendix
Table 8 Results of panel cointegration test |
Statistic | Value | Z-value | P -value |
---|---|---|---|
𝐺𝑡 | -2.985 | -4.236 | 0.000 |
𝐺𝑎 | -1.000 | 7.650 | 1.000 |
𝑃𝑡 | -12.994 | -2.200 | 0.014 |
𝑃𝑎 | -1.145 | 4.743 | 1.000 |