, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 407–424 | Cite as

Data envelopment analysis for measuring economic growth in terms of welfare beyond GDP

  • M. Lábaj
  • M. LuptáčikEmail author
  • E. Nežinský
Original Paper


Recent discussions about the definition of growth in terms of welfare beyond GDP suggest that it is of urgent need to develop new approaches for measuring the economic performance of firms and national economies. The new concepts should simultaneously take into account economic as well as social and environmental goals. First we present several approaches to productivity measures. Then we extend the data envelopment analysis models with environment indicators in order to measure the so called eco-efficiency and social indicators to take into consideration social performance. For illustration, we perform the analysis of 30 European countries for the year 2010. The last section concerns itself with the possibilities of inter-temporal analysis of the proposed models and their use in ex-ante evaluation of different policy scenarios.


Eco-efficiency Data envelopment analysis Beyond GDP 

JEL Classification

C43 C61 O47 



We are grateful for helpful comments and suggestions by the two anonymous referees and to Teresa Weiss for her careful proofreading of the manuscript, while stressing that the remaining errors and omissions are entirely the responsibility of the authors.


  1. Acemoglu D (2009) Introduction to modern economic growth. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Banker R, Charnes A, Cooper W (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 30(1984):1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosetti V, Buchner B (2009) Data envelopment analysis of different climate policy scenarios. Ecol Econ 68(2009):1340–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charnes A, Cooper W (1962) Programming with linear fractional functionals. Nav Res Logist Q 9:181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(1978):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E (1979) Short communication: measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 3(1979):339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dujava D (2012) Causes of lagging behind of new member states of EU: empirical analysis by montgomery decomposition. Politická ekonomie, University of Economics, Prague 2012(2):222–244Google Scholar
  8. Dyckhoff H, Allen K (2001) Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA). Eur J Oper Res 132(2001):312–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission (2005) Communication from the commission to the Council and the European Parliament. 2004 Environmental Policy Review, Brussels, 27-1-2005Google Scholar
  10. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell C, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparison when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71(1989):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Tyteca D (1996) An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms: application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecol Econ 18(1996):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmid SS (2008) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, USA 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griliches Z (1995) The discovery of the residual: an historical note. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, NBER Working Paper Series, WP No. 5348, November 1995Google Scholar
  14. Hailu A, Veeman TS (2001) Non-parametric productivity analysis with undesirable outputs: an application to the Canadian pulp and paper industry. Am J Agric Econ 83(2001):605–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Korhonen P, Luptáčik M (2004) Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 154(2004):437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee JD, Park JB, Kim TY (2002) Estimation of shadow prices of pollutants with production/environment inefficiency taken into account: a nonparametric directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 63(2002):365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahlberg B, Luptáčik M, Sahoo BK (2011) Examining the drivers of total factor productivity change with an illustrative example of 14 EU countries. Ecol Econ 72(2011):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD (1998) Eco-efficiency. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Rao P, Coelli TJ (1999) Economic growth, productivity change and inequality: methodology for the assesment of economic performance of nations. Working paper for the Workshop at the Kanda Campus of Senshu University, August 24, 1999Google Scholar
  20. Sahoo BK, Luptacik M, Mahlberg B (2011) Alternative measures of environmental technology structures in DEA: an application. Eur J Oper Res 215(2011):750–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sarkis J, Cordeiro JJ (2001) An empirical evaluation of environmental efficiencies and firm performance: pollution prevention versus end-of-pipe practice. Eur J Oper Res 135(2001):102–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schaltegger S, Sturm A (1989) Ökologieinduzierte Entscheidungsprobleme des Managements, Ansatzpunkte zur Ausgestaltung von Instrumenten. WWZ-Discussion Paper No. 8914, WWZ, BaselGoogle Scholar
  23. Solow R (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ten Raa T, Mohnen P (2002) Neoclassical growth accounting and frontier analysis: a synthesis. J Prod Anal 18(2):111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tyteca D (1996) On the measurement of the environmental performance of firms: a literature review and a productivity efficiency perspective. J Environ Manage 46(1996):281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tyteca D (1997) Linear programming models for the measurement of environmental performance of firms: concepts and empirical results. J Prod Anal 8(1997):183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. WBCSD (1996) Eco-efficient leadership. WBCSD, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Yang H, Pollitt M (2009) Incorporating both undesirable outputs and uncontrollable variables into DEA: the performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants. Eur J Oper Res 197(2009):1095–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economic Policy, Faculty of National EconomyUniversity of Economics in BratislavaBratislavaSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations