The infeasible problem of Malmquist–Luenberger index and its application on China’s environmental total factor productivity
- 389 Downloads
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.
KeywordsInfeasible Malmquist–Luenberger index Environmental total factor productivity Variable returns to scale
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.
- Cropper, M. L., & Oates, W. E. (1992). Environmental Economics: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2), 675–740.Google Scholar
- 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
- Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1994). Production frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kao, C. (2010). Malmquist productivity index based on common-weights DEA: The case of Taiwan forests after reorganization. Omega, 38, 484–491.Google Scholar
- Liu, W., & Tang, D. (2012). Environmental regulation, technological efficiency and total factor productivity growth. Industrial Economics Research, 5, 28–35.Google Scholar
- Loko, B., & Diouf, M. (2009). Revisiting the determinants of productivity growth: What’s new? IMF Working Paper; WP/09/225.Google Scholar
- Shephard, R. W. (1953). Cost and production functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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