934 () 7, CO2 COD SO2 D EA,, :,, GDP ;,, ; ; DEA ; ; 30,, (GDP ) ( GDP ) (1997b), GDP 1011 %1017 %, 206 ( ) ; %3817 %,, 20, (2006),

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "934 () 7, CO2 COD SO2 D EA,, :,, GDP ;,, ; ; DEA ; ; 30,, (GDP ) ( GDP ) (1997b), GDP 1011 %1017 %, 206 ( ) ; %3817 %,, 20, (2006),"

过校葵和
5 years ago
Views:

1 () China Econo mic Quarterly Vol17, No13 Ap ril, 2008 ( ) 3,,,,,,, GDP,, 30, (DEA ) (, 2005 ; Zheng and Hu, 2006), GDP, TFP, :, TFP,,,, GDP Solow TFP,, 3, ;,;,;, ;,:,Box 640, S , Ggteborg, Sweden ; E2mail :Jinghai. gu. se (CIDEG),

2 934 () 7, CO2 COD SO2 D EA,, :,, GDP ;,, ; ; DEA ; ; 30,, (GDP ) ( GDP ) (1997b), GDP 1011 %1017 %, 206 ( ) ; %3817 %,, 20, (2006),, , GDP,,,, GDP,,, ( Hamilton and Clemens, 1998 ; Kunte et al., 1998) (1997a) (genuine domestic savings), () ( Hamilton and Clemens, 1998) :

3 3 : 935 G ; ; G = GN P - C - K - n( R - g) - ( e - d) + m, (1) GN P - C, GN P - C - K ; ; - n( R - g), n, R, g, - ( R - g), R > g ; - ( e - d),, e - d, e, d ; m,,, GDP (depletion),, ( ret urn),,, (), CO2 1, Fankhauser (1995) 20 (2006) 1970 ( 1), :,, GDP 20 70,, 80, GDP 1/ 4, ; 80, GDP 10 % ; 90 GDP 5 %, % ;, 2005 GDP 617 %, GDP 70, 2 %, 80 3 %, 90, 90, %,,, 20, 70 80, GDP 112 %, 80 90, GDP 018 % 112 % ; 90, GDP, %, 018 %, GDP,, GDP 012 % %, %

4 936 () 7 GDP, ( 1) 70 GDP 3 % 8 % ; 70 80, GDP 30 % ;, 80, 15 % 1 ; 90, 1995, 7158 % ; 90, %,, GDP,,, GDP, 90, 1 : %(GDP ) :World Bank, World Development Indicator, 2006 CD2ROM,,,, SO2,, ;,,, GDP,, 30 1 (1989),,

5 3 : 937,, GDP,,,,,,, TFP (2006) GDP, (2004) 2 015,, GDP , GDP 113, 31 6 GDP,, TFP 3 %4 %, (4163) (4118) (4102) (4109) (4182) (4164) 6 TFP 4 %, (2161) (2146) (2193) (1174) (2116) 5 TFP 2 %, TFP, 0157 %, ( GDP, ), TFP, TFP GDP 30 %40 %, (48176) (45121) ( 40131) ( 40113) 4 40 %, (28145) (28165) (29146) (28183) (18136) (26159) 6 TFP 30 %, TFP 2, (2004),

6 938 () 7, 5163 % ( 2) 2 TFP ( ) : % GDP TFP TFP :01 5

7 3 : 939, , GDP 015, 14, 8 GDP 2, GDP 214, GDP , 29,, (5126) (5170) (5105) (5196) 4 TFP 5 %, (1187) (1186) (0131) (1100) (0110) (1160) ( ) 7 TFP 2 %, TFP, TFP, (8112), (1168) (5136), 3168,, 16 TFP,, TFP,, TFP, TFP GDP ( 3) 3 TFP : % GDP TFP GDP TFP

8 940 () 7 ( ) GDP TFP GDP TFP : ,,,,,, (, 2000 ;, 2006 ;, 2006),, 5,, COD ( Chemical Organic Demand, COD), SO2, CO ,1991,,1990,1991, 2001,85 %, 85 %

9 3 : 941 () 1989, (, 1993 ;, 2003),,,,, 5 :, 5, , ,, ( / ) ( / ) ( 751 / ) ( 439 / ) ( 57 / ),,,,, ( 4) ( / ) 5 ( / ) (),,,,, 2005,, ,,,,, , ( 5)

10 942 () ( ) ( ) () COD COD, ( ) COD (, 2006),, 10 : ;, ; ( 6) 2005 COD 10 6 COD ( ) ( ) ( ) () SO2, SO2 ( ), ( ), ( ), 2003 (, 2006 ;, 2006) 7, SO2, 10,

11 3 : 943 ( 7) SO ( ) 10 ( %) () CO2 CO2, CO2, CO2 CO2 (, 2006), : CO2 = CO2. CO2 CO2, (44 12),, 01 67, ( CDIAC) 01 69, ( IEE, Japan) 01 68, (, 2006), (, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005),,, ( 8)

12 944 () CO ( ) ( %) ,, GDP SO2,,,,,,, GDP TFP Chambers et al. (1996),,, ( Fgre et al., 1994) Chung et al. (1997), Malmquist2L uenberger, DEA, 30 J eon and Sickles (2004) :

13 3 : 945 F t = { ( x t, y t, b t ) x t can produce ( y t, b t ) }, b : ( x t, y t, b t ) F t and 0 1 imply ( x t, y t, b t ) F t, : If ( x t, y t, b t ) F t and b t = 0 t hen y t = 0. : D0 t ( x t, y t, b t ) = inf { ( x t, y t /, b t / ) F t } = ( sup { ( x t, y t, b t ) F t } ) - 1. (b ), D EA : ( ^D 0 t ( x t ( k 3 ), y t ( k 3 ), b t ( k 3 ) ) ) - 1 = max ( k 3 ), K s. t. ( k 3 ) y t m ( k 3 ) 6 K 6 t ( k) x t l ( k) k = 1 k = 1 t ( k) y t m ( k), m = 1,, M, x t l ( k 3 ), l = 1,, L, t ( k) 0, k = 1,, K., 0 1, : = 1 ^D t 0 ( x t, y t, b t ) b = 0. : P( x t ) = { ( y t, b t ) ( x t, y t, b t ) F t }. g, : ^D 0 t ( x t, y t, b t ; g) = sup{ ( y t + g y, b t - g b) P( x t ) }. ( y, b), : gd t 0 ( x t, y t, b t ; y, b) = sup { ( y t + g y, b t + g b) P( x t ) } = sup { ( y t (1 + ), b t (1 + ) ) P( x t ) } = sup { (1 + ) ( y t (1 + ), b t (1 + ) ) P( x t ) } = sup{ (1 + ) ( y t (1 + ), b t (1 + ) ) P( x t ) } = D t 0 ( x t, y t, b t ).

14 946 () 7, DEA, D^ t 0 ( x t ( k 3 ), y t ( k 3 ), b t ( k 3 ) ; y t ( k 3 ), - b t ( k 3 ) ) = max, K s. t. (1 + ) y t m ( k 3 ) 6 t ( k) y t m ( k), m = 1,, M, K 6 k = 1 t ( k) b t n ( k) K 6 t ( k) x t l ( k) k = 1 k = 1 = (1 - ) b t n ( k 3 ), n = 1,, N, x t l ( k 3 ), l = 1,, L, t ( k) 0, k = 1,, K. Fgre et al. (1989), 0 1, = gd t 0 ( x t, y t, b t ; y t, - b t ).,,,, 1, 100 %, 100 %, Tyteca (1997) : ( gd 0 t ( x t ( k 3 ), y t ( k 3 ), b t ( k 3 ) ) ) - 1 = min ( k 3 ), K s. t. y t m ( k 3 ) 6 K 6 k = 1 t ( k) b t n ( k) K 6 t ( k) x t l ( k) k = 1 k = 1 t ( k) y t m ( k), m = 1,, M, = ( k 3 ) b t n ( k 3 ), n = 1,, N, x t l ( k 3 ), l = 1,, L, t ( k) 0, k = 1,, K. ( Seifert and Zhu, 1998) (Zhou et al., 2007) (2005) DEA

15 3 : 947, (),,,, :,, ,, 01222, SO2, ( 9) 9 () CO COD SO ,,,, SO2, 01084, CO2, 01010,, ( 10) 10 () CO2COD CO2SO CO CO COD SO

16 948 () 7 ( ) COD COD SO SO ,, :,, , ;,, , ;,,, , , , ( 11) (),,,, 10 14, ;, 8 10, :, ( 12)

17 3 : :,, ;, (),, SO2 (4)

18 950 () 7 (),,,, CO2,,,, COD SO2, SO2, ( 13) 13 () CO2 COD SO2,,, ( SO2 ), CO2 SO2,, CO2 SO2 12, CO2 10, SO2 13,,, SO2, SO2, ( 14) 14 () CO2COD CO2SO2 CO2 CO2 COD SO2 COD

19 3 : 951 ( ) COD SO2 SO2,,,,, 2000, 2000, ,, 2003, 2002,, 2000 ( 15) () GDP, 1,, , ( 16),, GDP ( ) ( 1 2),, ;,

20 952 () 7 16 ( ) (01 74), (0183), (01 83),(01 84), (01 85) (11 04), (1107), (11 09), (1110), (11 11), (1113), (11 15), (1116), (11 16), (1117) (11 24), (1125), (11 26), (1127), (11 27), (1129), (1133), (11 36) (11 41), (1141), (11 43), (1154), (11 59), (1163), (11 79) :GDP 1 ( ) 2 ( ), GDP,

21 3 : 953,,,,,,,, (), ; (SO2 ),,,,,,,,,,,, (),,,,,,,,,, (),, SO2,,,, ;,,, TFP,,,,,,

22 954 () 7

23 3 : 955

24 956 () 7

25 3 : 957

26 958 () 7

27 3 : 959 [ 1 ] Chambers, R., Y. Chung, and R. Fgre,Benefit and Distance Functions, J ournal of Economic T heory, 1996, 70 (2), [ 2 ] Chung, Y., R. Fgre, and S. Grosskopf,Productivity and Undesirable Output s : A Directional Distance Function Approach, J ournal of Envi ronmental M anagement, 1997, 51 (3), [ 3 ] Fgre, R., S. Grosskopf, C. Lovell, and C. Pasurka, Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Output s Are Undesirable : A Nonparametric Approach, Review of Economics and S tatistics, 1989, 71 (1), [ 4 ] Fgre, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris and Z. Zhang,Productivity Growt h, Technical Progress and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries, A merican Economic Review, 1994, 84 (1), [ 5 ] Fankhauser, S., Valuing Climate Change : The Economics of the Greenhouse. London : Earthscan, [ 6 ] Hamilton, K., and M. Clemens,Genuine Savings Rates in Developing Countries, Environment Depart ment Paper, Washington, DC, World Bank, [ 7 ], :,1989 [ 8 ] Jeon, B., and R. Sickles,The Role of Environmental Factors in Growt h Accounting, J ournal of A p plied Economet rics, 2004, 19 (5), [ 9 ],2006 :,2006 [ 10 ] Kunte, A., K. Hamilton, J. Dixon, and M. Clemens,Estimating National Wealt h : Met hodolo2 gy & Result s, Environment Depart ment Paper, Washington, DC, World Bank, [ 11 ],,,2003 8,36 40 [ 12 ], ( ),,2006 7,5 12 [ 13 ] Seifert, L., and J. Zhu,Identifying Excesses and Deficits in Chinese Industrial Productivity ( ) : A Weighted Data Envelopment Analysis Approach, Omega, 1998, 26(2), [ 14 ] Tyteca, D.,Linear Programming Models for the Measurement of Environmental Performance of Firms : Concepts and Empirical Results, J ournal of Productivity A nalysis, 1997, 8 (2), [ 15 ],,,1993 4, [ 16 ] World_Bank, China 2020 : Development Challenges in the N ew Century. Oxford, Oxford Universi2 ty Press, 1997a. [ 17 ] World_Bank, Ex panding the Measure of Wealth : Indicators of Environmentally S ustainable De2 velopment. Washington, D. C., World Bank, 1997b. [ 18 ] World_Bank, Worl d Development Indicators. Washington, D. C. : World Bank [ 19 ],( ) ), ( ), , [ 20 ] Zheng, J., and A. Hu, An Empirical Analysis of Provincial Productivity in China ( ), J ournal of Chinese Economic and B usiness S tudies, 2006, 4 (3) : [ 21 ], ( ), http :/ / www. gov. cn/ zwgk/ / 05/ content_ ht m [ 22 ],2006,,2006 [ 23 ],,,2002 2,

28 960 () 7 [ 24 ] Zhou, P., K. Poh, and B. Ang,A Non2radial DEA Approach to Measuring Environmental Per2 formance, European J ournal of O perational Research, 2007, 178 (1), 1 9. [ 25 ],: ,, , [ 26 ],(2000) :,2000 [ 27 ],(2003) :,2003 [ 28 ],(2004) :,2004 [ 29 ],(2005) :,2005 [ 30 ], :,2006 Provincial Technology Eff iciency Ranking with Environment Factors( ) AN GAN G HU ( Tsi ng hua Uni versit y) J IN GHA I ZH EN G ( Ggteborg U ni versit y ) YUN IN G GAO (U ni versit y of Cambri d ge) N IN G ZHAN G ( T he Chi nese U ni versit y of Hong Kong) HA IPIN G XU ( Zhej i an g U ni versit y ) Abstract In recent years, some productivity models have started to consider the influ2 ence of environmental factors. This study re2ranks technical efficiency of Chinese provinces, using directional distance f unction approach. It takes account of environmental factors while implementing the DEA methodology. The study demonstrates that this type of models can produce efficiency rankings that are significantly different f rom the standard DEA model, and opens new avenues for the studies of total factor productivity when environmental factors are involved. JEL Classif ication D24, O53, O13

: D EA, , GDP 1. 79% 3. 66%, %, SO %, 2008,,,,,,,,? :,,,,,, 20% 10%,,,,, (, 2008)?,,,,, (, 2008),,,,?, (, 2007),,,,??, 2007,

: D EA, , GDP 1. 79% 3. 66%, %, SO %, 2008,,,,,,,,? :,,,,,, 20% 10%,,,,, (, 2008)?,,,,, (, 2008),,,,?, (, 2007),,,,??, 2007, : D EA 3,,,, 2005 2007 30 ( ),,,, DEA,, 5, 2005 20%, 2005 10%, 3 : 310018 : xiaochu@ zstu. edu. cn; : 361005 : dlm sos@ hotmail. com; : 310018 : smhsmh@zstu. edu. cn 2009 PACE, -, (08AJY031 08BJL050) (09YJA820074