Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 278, Issue 1–2, pp 235–253 | Cite as

The infeasible problem of Malmquist–Luenberger index and its application on China’s environmental total factor productivity

  • Juan Du
  • Yongrui Duan
  • Jinghua XuEmail author
DEA in Data Analytics

Abstract

The Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index would cause infeasible problem when measuring mixed period change of total factor productivity. The former research focuses on the infeasible issue under the hypothesis of constant return to scale (CRS). There are many meaningful solutions which could avoid this infeasible problem of Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index. However, these solutions couldn’t avoid infeasible problem under condition of variable returns to scale (VRS). The new solution is proposed in this paper which could solve this problem under VRS based on super-efficiency issue. The empirical results of environmental total factor productivity (ETFP) change of thirty regions in China indicate that China isn’t efficient from 1997 to 2014. Among eight economic regions northwest and southern coastal decline, the ETFP decrease 15%, 10% respectively. From the perspective of provinces in China, Hainan, Qinghai and Ningxia have the lowest environmental total factor productivity and their environmental technical efficiency is also the lowest. These non-efficient provinces all have lower gross domestic product and they should improve technique change efficiency through adopting advanced technology in the future. The fixed effects regression model illustrates that energy intensity, research and development, foreign direct investment are factors of ETFP in China. Both research and development and foreign direct investment could improve total factor productivity and this indicates that Pollutant Heaven Hypothesis doesn’t exist in China.

Keywords

Infeasible Malmquist–Luenberger index Environmental total factor productivity Variable returns to scale 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71471133, 71432007 & 71532015) for funding. This study is partially supported by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (China). The corresponding author thanks the 18th Annual Conference of China Management Science for the feedback on an earlier version of the research.

References

  1. Aparicio, J., Pastor, J. T., & Zofio, J. L. (2013). On the inconsistency of the Malmquist–Luenberger index. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(3), 738–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arabi, B., Munisamy, S., & Emrouznejad, A. (2015). A new slacks-based measure of Malmquist–Luenberger index in the presence of undesirable outputs. Omega, 51, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronzini, R., & Piselli, P. (2009). Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical spillovers: The role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(2), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., & Diewert, E. W. (1982). The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica, 50(6), 1393–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1996). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chimeli, A., & Braden, J. (2004). Total factor productivity and the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49(2), 366–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung, Y., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(3), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cropper, M. L., & Oates, W. E. (1992). Environmental Economics: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2), 675–740.Google Scholar
  9. Du, M., Wang, B., & Wu, Y. (2014). Sources of China’s economic growth: An empirical analysis based on the BML index with green growth accounting. Sustainability, 6(9), 5983–6004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Essid, H., Ouellette, P., & Vigeant, S. (2014). Productivity, efficiency, and technical change of Tunisian schools: A bootstrapped Malmquist approach with quasi-fixed inputs. Omega, 42(1), 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2010). Directional distance functions and slacks-based measures of efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 320–322.Google Scholar
  12. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1994). Production frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. (1986). Effects on relative efficiency in electric power generation due to environmental controls. Resources and Energy, 8, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. A, Jr. (2001). Accounting for air pollution emissions in measures of state manufacturing productivity growth. Journal of Regional Science, 41(3), 381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. A. (2007). Environmental production functions and environmental directional distance functions. Energy, 32(7), 1055–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. A. (2014). Potential gains from trading bad outputs: The case of U.S. electric power plants. Resource and Energy Economics, 36(1), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Pasurka, C. A., & William, W. (2012). Substitutability among undesirable outputs. Applied Economics, 44(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuentes, R., & Lillo-Banuls, A. (2015). Smoothed bootstrap Malmquist index based on DEA model to compute productivity of tax offices. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5), 2442–2450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gitto, S., & Mancuso, P. (2012). Bootstrapping the Malmquist indexes for Italian airports. International Journal Production Economics, 135(1), 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. He, J. (2006). Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: The case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact. Ecological Economics, 78(6), 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, J. L., & Wang, S. C. (2006). Total-factor energy efficiency of regions in China. Energy Policy, 34(17), 3206–3217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kao, C. (2010). Malmquist productivity index based on common-weights DEA: The case of Taiwan forests after reorganization. Omega, 38, 484–491.Google Scholar
  24. Krautzberger, L., & Wetzel, H. (2012). Transport and CO\(_{2}\): Productivity growth and carbon dioxide emissions in the European commercial transport industry. Environmental Resource Economics, 53(3), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar, S. (2006). Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: A global analysis using Malmquist–Luenberger index. Ecological Economics, 56(2), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liang, L., Li, Y. J., & Li, S. B. (2009). Increasing the discriminatory power of DEA in the presence of the undesirable outputs and large dimensionality of data sets with PCA. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5895–5899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu, W., & Tang, D. (2012). Environmental regulation, technological efficiency and total factor productivity growth. Industrial Economics Research, 5, 28–35.Google Scholar
  28. Loko, B., & Diouf, M. (2009). Revisiting the determinants of productivity growth: What’s new? IMF Working Paper; WP/09/225.Google Scholar
  29. Lovell, C., & Rouse, A. (2003). Equivalent standard DEA models to provide super-efficiency scores. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(1), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luenberger, D. G. (1992a). Benefit functions and duality. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 21(5), 461–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luenberger, D. G. (1992b). New optimality principles for economic efficiency and equilibrium. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 75(2), 221–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luenberger, D. G. (1994a). Dual Pareto efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory, 62(1), 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luenberger, D. G. (1994b). Optimality and the theory of value. Journal of Economic Theory, 63(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luenberger, D. G. (1995). Externalities and benefits. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 24(2), 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oh, D. H. (2010). A global Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 34(3), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oh, D. H., & Heshmati, A. (2010). A sequential Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index: Environmentally sensitive productivity growth considering the progressive nature of technology. Energy Economics, 32(6), 1345–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pastor, J. T., Asmild, M., & Lovell, C. A. (2011). The biennial Malmquist productivity change index. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 45(1), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reinhard, S. C., Lovell, A. K., & Thijssen, G. (1999). Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: An application to Dutch dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shephard, R. W. (1953). Cost and production functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shestalova, V. (2003). Sequential Malmquist indices of productivity growth: An application to OECD industrial activities. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 19(2/3), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2013). DEA environmental assessment in a time horizon: Malmquist index on fuel mix, electricity and \({\rm CO}_{2}\) of industrial nations. Energy Economics, 40, 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tang, D., Tang, J., Xiao, Z., Ma, T., & Bethel, B. (2017). Environmental regulation efficiency and total factor productivity-effect analysis based on Chinese data from 2003 to 2013. Ecological Indicators, 73(2), 312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tone, K. (2010). Variations on the theme of slacks-based measure of efficiency in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(3), 901–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tulkens, H., & Vanden Eeckaut, P. (1995). Non-parametric efficiency, progress and regress measure for panel data: Methodological aspects. European Journal of Operational Research, 80(3), 474–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang, B., Wu, Y., & Yan, P. (2010). Environmental efficiency and environmental total factor productivity growth in China’s regional economics. Economic Research Journal, 5, 95–109.Google Scholar
  47. Wheeler, D. (2001). Racing to the bottom? Foreign investment and air pollution in development countries. Journal of Environment and Development, 10(3), 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu, A. H., Cao, Y. Y., & Liu, B. (2013). Energy efficiency evaluation for regions in China: An application of DEA and Malmquist indices. Energy Efficiency, 7(3), 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, C., Liu, H., Bressers, H. T., & Buchanan, K. S. (2011). Productivity growth and environmental regulations-accounting for undesirable outputs: Analysis of China’s thirty provincial regions using the Malmquist–Luenberger index. Ecological Economics, 70(12), 2369–2379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, Z., & Ye, J. (2015). Decomposition of environmental total factor productivity growth using hyperbolic distance functions: A panel data analysis for China. Energy Economics, 47, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang, K., Yi, Y., & Zhang, W. (2014). Environmental total factor productivity and regional disparity in China. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 7(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Han, J. Y. (2010). Total factor carbon emission performance: A Malmquist index analysis. Energy Economics, 32(1), 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations