IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agecon/v25y2001i2-3p211-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative methods for environmentally adjusted productivity analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hailu, Atakelty
  • Veeman, Terrence S.

Abstract

Advances in the productivity with which food is produced around the world have been made possible through the intensive use of industrial inputs that have important environmental impacts. Like standard measures of macroeconomic performance, however, commonly used measures of agricultural efficiency and productivity account only for marketed commodities and inputs, but ignore the environmental effects of these production processes. A more complete analysis of trends in the sector's productivity requires the use of models that incorporate these environmental effects to provide better measures of the contributions of the sector from the social point of view. This paper compares the conceptual merits and empirical performance of alternative approaches that can be employed for this purpose: input distance functions, output distance functions, nonparametric methods, and index number approaches. Each of the methods has relative strengths and weaknesses. The methods are empirically illustrated using data from the Canadian pulp and paper industry.© 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hailu, Atakelty & Veeman, Terrence S., 2001. "Alternative methods for environmentally adjusted productivity analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 211-218, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agecon:v:25:y:2001:i:2-3:p:211-218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169-5150(01)00078-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(365), pages 73-86, March.
    2. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1393-1414, November.
    3. Coggins, Jay S. & Swinton, John R., 1996. "The Price of Pollution: A Dual Approach to Valuing SO2Allowances," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 58-72, January.
    4. Banker, Rajiv D & Maindiratta, Ajay, 1988. "Nonparametric Analysis of Technical and Allocative Efficiencies in Production," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(6), pages 1315-1332, November.
    5. Hailu, Atakelty & Hailu, Atakelty, 2003. "Pollution abatement and productivity performance of regional Canadian pulp and paper industries," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 5-25.
    6. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    7. Atakelty Hailu & Terrence S. Veeman, 2001. "Non-parametric Productivity Analysis with Undesirable Outputs: An Application to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 605-616.
    8. Varian, Hal R, 1984. "The Nonparametric Approach to Production Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 579-597, May.
    9. Shaik, Saleem & Perrin, Richard K., 1999. "The Role Of Non-Parametric Approach In Adjusting Productivity Measures For Environmental Impacts," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21716, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Pittman, Russell W, 1983. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons with Undesirable Outputs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 93(372), pages 883-891, December.
    11. Jean-Paul Chavas & Thomas L. Cox, 1997. "Production Analysis: A Non-Parametric Time Series Application To Us Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 330-348.
    12. Hailu, Atakelty & Veeman, Terrence S., 2000. "Environmentally Sensitive Productivity Analysis of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry, 1959-1994: An Input Distance Function Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 251-274, November.
    13. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1993. "Derivation of Shadow Prices for Undesirable Outputs: A Distance Function Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(2), pages 374-380, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melfou, Katerina & Papanagiotou, Evangelos, 2003. "Total Factor Productivity Adjusted for a Detrimental Input," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 4(2), August.
    2. Camelia Burja, 2012. "Determinants Of The Agricultural Productivity Growth Among Romanian Regions," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(14), pages 1-18.
    3. Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Coelli, Tim, 2011. "Measurement of agricultural total factor productivity growth incorporating environmental factors: A nutrients balance approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 462-474.
    4. K Hervé Dakpo, 2016. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies: a new formulation of the by-production approach," Working Papers SMART - LERECO 16-06, INRA UMR SMART-LERECO.
    5. Gelaw, Fekadu, 2013. "Inefficiency and Incapability Gaps as Causes of Poverty: A Poverty Line-Augmented Efficiency Analysis Using Stochastic Distance Function," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 8(2), August.
    6. Annegrete Bruvoll & Torstein Bye & Jan Larsson & Kjetil Telle, 2003. "Technological changes in the pulp and paper industry and the role of uniform versus selective environmental policy," Discussion Papers 357, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    7. Torstein Bye & Annegrete Bruvoll & Jan Larsson, 2009. "Capacity Utilization in a Generalized Malmquist Index Including Environmental Factors: A Decomposition Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 529-538.
    8. Terrence S. Veeman, 2008. "Development, Productivity, and Sustaining Natural Capital," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(1), pages 13-25, March.
    9. Zhao, Xiaoli & Ma, Chunbo, 2013. "Deregulation, vertical unbundling and the performance of China's large coal-fired power plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 474-483.
    10. Madhu Khanna & Surender Kumar, 2011. "Corporate Environmental Management and Environmental Efficiency," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 227-242, October.
    11. Kjetil Telle & Jan Larsson, 2004. "Do environmental regulations hamper productivity growth? How accounting for improvements of firms' environmental performance can change the conclusion," Discussion Papers 374, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    12. Munksgaard, Jesper & Christoffersen, Line Block & Keiding, Hans & Pedersen, Ole Gravgard & Jensen, Trine S., 2007. "An environmental performance index for products reflecting damage costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 119-130, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L73 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Primary Products and Construction - - - Forest Products
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agecon:v:25:y:2001:i:2-3:p:211-218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/agec .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.