Annex I and non-Annex I countries’productive performance revisited using a generalized directional distance function under a metafrontier framework: Is there any convergence-divergence pattern for technology gaps?

Kounetas, Kostas and Zervopoulos, Panagiotis (2017): Annex I and non-Annex I countries’productive performance revisited using a generalized directional distance function under a metafrontier framework: Is there any convergence-divergence pattern for technology gaps?

Abstract

Countries rapid economic growth, energy consumption and anthropogenic emissions (GHGs) in the atmosphere are creating serious environmental problem on both global and local scales -. This is while compiled evidence about the relationship between climate change/global warming and the amount of GHG released is present (IEA, 2010). In advance, it is generally accepted that countries production processes, should seriously, take into account environmental sustainability principles and targets. In recent years, there have been a series of studies using a directional distance function dealing with environmental efficiency with the aim of measuring the ability of decision making units (i.e regions, firms, industries, countries) to produce more with less impact on the environment. A scarcity of empirical studies appears concerning the estimation of directional distance function under a metafrontier framework. In this paper we employ a balanced panel of 103 countries from 1995-2011 to shed light on the idiosyncratic performance of countries participating in two distinct different groups (Annex I and non-Annex I) using a generalized directional distance function independent of the direction vector length -. The non-parametric metafrontier framework - used in this study, as a first stage of analysis, is exploited to account for the heterogeneity between countries participating in our sample. In the second stage, a convergence-divergence hypothesis has been examined for the technology gaps estimated for each period. Our findings reveal significant patterns between countries’ individual performance.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Metafrontier; Generalized Distance Function; Technology gaps; Annex-I countries
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D24 - Production ; Cost ; Capital ; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity ; Capacity; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy

References

Antonelli, C., 2006.Localized technological change and factor markets: Constraints and inducements to innovation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 17(2), 224-247.

Babiker, A., Reilly, M.J., Jacoby, D,H., 2000. The Kyoto Protocol and developing countries. Energy Policy, 28, 525-536.

Barros, C.P., Managi, S. R. Matousek, R., 2012,. The technical efficiency of the Japanese banks: non-radial directional performance measurement with undesirable outputs. Omega, 40, 1–8

Barro, R.J.,Sala-i-Martin, X.,1991.Convergence Across States and Regions. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 1990 (1), 107-182.

Battese, G. E., & Rao, D. P. 2002. Technology gap, efficiency, and a stochastic metafrontier function. International Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 87-93.

Battese, G. E., Rao, D. P., & O'Donnell, C. J. 2004. A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21(1), 91-103.

Binswanger, H.P., Ruttan, V.W., Ben-Zion, U., Janvry, A. D., Evenson, R.E., 1978. Induced innovation; technology, institutions, and development.

Böhringer, C., Vogt, C. 2003. Economic and environmental impacts of the Kyoto Protocol. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 36(2), 475-496.

Böhringer, C., Vogt, C. (2004). The dismantling of a breakthrough: the Kyoto Protocol as symbolic policy. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(3), 597-617.

Calbick, K.S., Gunton, T., 2014. Differences among OECD countries’ GHG emissions: Causes and policy implications. Energy Policy, 67, 895–902.

Camarero, M., Picazo-Tadeo, A.J. C. Tamarit, C., 2008. Is the environmental performance of industrialized countries converging? A ‘SURE’ approach to testing for convergence. Ecological Economics, 66, 653–661

Camarero, M., Castillo, J., Picazo-Tadeo, A.J., and Tamarit, C., 2013. Is ecofficiency in greenhouse gas emissions converging among European Union countries. Empirical Economics , 47(1), 143-168.

Castellacci, F., 2007. Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(6), 1105-1145.

Cheng, G., Zervopoulos, P., 2014. Estimating the technical efficiency of health care systems: A cross-country comparison using the directional distance function. European Journal of Operational Research, 238 (3), 899-910.

Chambers, F.G., Chung, Y., Fare, R., 1996. Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70, 407–419

Chiu, C.R., Liou, J.L., Wu, P.I., Fang, C.L. 2012. Decomposition of the environmental inefficiency of the meta-frontier with undesirable output. Energy Economics 34, 1392-1399.

Cuesta, R. A., Lovell, C. K., & Zofío, J. L. (2009). Environmental efficiency measurement with translog distance functions: A parametric approach. Ecological Economics, 68(8), 2232-2242.

Den Elzen, M., Höhne, N. 2008. Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilisation targets. Climatic Change, 91(3), 249-274.

Den Elzen, M. G., De Moor, A. P. 2002. Analyzing the Kyoto Protocol under the Marrakesh Accords: economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness. Ecological Economics, 43(2), 141-158.

Easterly, W., Levine R., 2001. What have we learned from a decade of empirical research on growth? It's Not Factor Accumulation: Stylized Facts and Growth Models. World Bank Economic Review, 15 (2), 177-219.

Färe, R, S. Grosskopf, C. Pasurka 2007. Environmental production functions and environmental directional distance functions. Energy 32 ,1055-1066.

Färe, R.,and S. Grosskopf 2010. Directional distance functions and slacks-based measures of efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 200 320-322.

Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Dong-Woon N., Weber, W., 2005. Characteristics of a polluting technology:theory and practice. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 469-492.

Färe, R., and Grosskopf, S, 2000, Theory and Application of Directional Distance Functions. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 93-103.

Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. (1994). Production frontiers. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Feroz, E. H., Raab, R. L., Ulleberg, G. T., & Alsharif, K. 2009. Global warming and environmental production efficiency ranking of the Kyoto Protocol nations. Journal of environmental management, 90(2), 1178-1183.

Fotopoulos, G., 2006. Νonparametric Analysis of Regional Income Dynamics: the case of Greece. Economic Letters, 91, 450-457.

Fukuyama, H., Weber, W.L., 2009.A directional slacks-based measure of technical efficiency. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 43, 274–287

Fukuyama,H., Yoshida, Y., Managi, S., 2011. Modal choice between air and rail: a social efficiency benchmarking analysis that considers CO2 emissions. Environment and Economic Policy Studies,13,89-102.

IEA (2010). Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fuel Combustion. Highlights. International Energy Agency. OCDE. Johnson, A.P., 2000. A nonparametric analysis of income convergence across the US states. Econ. Lett. 69, 219-223.

Johnson, A.P., 2005. A continuous state space approach to "Convergence by Parts. Economic Letters, 86 (3), 317-321.

Halkos, G. E., Tzeremes, G.N., 2014. Measuring the effect of Kyoto protocol agreement on countries’ environmental efficiency in CO2 emissions: an application of conditional full frontiers. Journal of Productivity Analysis 41 (3), 367-382.

Halkos, G. E., Tzeremes, G.N., 2011 Modelling the effect of national culture on multinational banks performance: a conditional robust nonparametric frontier analysis. Economic Modeling , 28, 515–525

IPCC Climate Change 2007. In: Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A. (Eds.), Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kontolaimou, A., Kounetas, K., Mourtos, I., & Tsekouras, K. 2012. Technology gaps in European banking: Put the blame on inputs or outputs? Economic Modelling, 29(5), 1798-1808.

Kounetas, K. 2015. Heterogeneous technologies, strategic groups and environmental efficiency technology gaps for European countries. Energy Policy, 83, 277-287.

Kumar, S., Khanna, N., 2009. Measurement of environmental efficiency and productivity: a cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 14 (4),473–495.

Kuosmanen, T and Kortelainen, M., 2005. Measuring Eco-efficiency of Production with Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (4) 59-72.

Los, B., Verspagen, B., 2006. The evolution of productivity gaps and specialization patterns. Metroeconomica, 57(4), 464-493

Mahlberg, B. Sahoo, B. K., Luptacik, M., 2011. Alternative measures of environmental technology structure in DEA: An application. European Journal of Operational Research, 215(3), 750-762.

Mankiw, N.G., D. Romer, D., D.N. Weil, D.N., 1992. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2), 407–437.

Mulder, P., De Groot, L.F.H., 2012.Structural change and convergence of energy intensity across OECD countries, 1970-2005. Energ. Econ. 34, 1910-1921.

O’Donnell, C. J., Rao, D. P., & Battese, G. E. 2008. Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Economics, 34(2), 231-255.

Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., & Toninelli, R. (2011). Eco-efficiency of the world cement industry: a data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2842-2854.

Oh, Dong-hyun 2010. A metafrontier approach for measuring an environmentally sensitive productivity growth index. Energy Economics 32 (1), 146-157.

Quah, D.T., 1997. Empirics for Growth and Distribution: Stratification, Polarization, and Convergence Clubs. Journal of Economic Growth, 2, 27-59.

Quah, D.T., 1993. Galton's Fallacy and the Convergence Hypothesis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 95, 427-443. Quah, D.T., 1996. Convergence empirics across economies with (some) capital mobility. Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 95-124.

Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M. 2010. Should the US clean air act include CO 2 emission control?: Examination by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5902-5911.

Tol R., 2009. The economic effects of climate change. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23:29-51.

Tone, K. 2001. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 130, 498-509.

Tsekouras, K., Chatzistamoulou, N., Kounetas, K., Broadstock, D. C. 2016. Spillovers, path dependence and the productive performance of European transportation sectors in the presence of technology heterogeneity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 261-274.

Yu-Ying Lin, E., Chen Ping-Yu., Chen, Chi-Chung 2013.Measuring the environmental efficiency of countries: A directional distance function metafrontier approach. Journal of Environmental Management 119, 134-142.

Weitzman, M.L., (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91 (1) 1-19

Taskin, F., & Zaim, O. (2001). The role of international trade on environmental efficiency: a DEA approach. Economic Modelling, 18(1), 1-17.

Zhou,P., B.W. Ang, H. Wang 2012. Energy and CO2 emission performance in electricity generation: a non-radial directional distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 221, 625–635

Zhang, N., P. Zhou, Choi Yongrok 2013. Energy efficiency, CO2 emission performance and technology gaps in fossil fuel electricity generation in Korea: a meta-frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy, 56, 653–662