Abstract
Abstract Seven Chinese cities have enacted One-Weekday Limit (OWL) driving restrictions following Beijing’s implementation shortly after the Olympics in 2008. Existing literature examines the short-run effect of the OWL or the long-run effect of the Olympic-year policy package on air pollution in Beijing. Using two difference-in-differences (DD) approaches, this study compares the long-run effect of the Olympic-year policy package with the effect of the OWL. Using the city of Tianjin as a control, this study finds a significant drop in pollution due to the Olympic-year policy package. Using weekends as a control, this study finds a much smaller and less significant drop due to the OWL. These new findings suggest that compared to the OWL, other policies enforced in the Olympic year account for a greater portion of the drop.
Highlights
Seven Chinese city governments have instituted the One-Weekday Limit (OWL) driving restrictions similar to the one the Beijing government imposed 11 years ago following the 2008 Olympics
These new findings suggest that compared to the OWL, other policies enforced in the Olympic year account for a greater portion of the drop
Because the OWL is enacted with a combination of other policies such as plant closures, emission standards, and subway extensions in the Olympic year in Beijing, it is much easier to evaluate the impact of the Olympic-year policy package first
Summary
Seven Chinese city governments have instituted the One-Weekday Limit (OWL) driving restrictions similar to the one the Beijing government imposed 11 years ago following the 2008 Olympics These cities include Tianjin, Nanchang, Hangzhou, Lanzhou, Guiyang, Chengdu, and Changchun which are all municipality or provincial capitals located in the middle, west, and northeast parts of China. In contrast to Viard and Fu (2015), who claim a short-run impact of 21 percent, this study finds only a 3–5 percent less significant reduction in pollution of the OWL policy’s two-year, three-year, and four-year impacts Based on these new findings, this paper concludes that rather than the OWL, other Olympic-year policies contributed to a larger portion of the significant pollution drop in Beijing. It provides an initial comparison of the effect of the OWL with that of other policies instituted during the Olympic year in Beijing, while previous studies only evaluate either effect individually
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
