IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qld/uqcepa/38.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measurement Of Agricultural Total Factor Productivity Growth Incorporating Environmental Factors- A Nutrients Balance Approach

Author

Abstract

This paper develops a new measure of total factor productivity growth in agricultural production which incorporates environmental effects. The new measure is called the Total Factor Nutrient-Orientated Productivity (TFNP) Index, and incorporates a materials balance condition. TFNP measures changes in nutrient-orientated efficiency and can be decomposed into efficiency change (EC), technological change (TC) and nutrient-orientated technological change (NTC) components. An empirical analysis, involving country-level data from OECD countries during 1990-2003, is provided using DEA methods. Estimates of mean technical and nutrient-orientated efficiency are 0.798 and 0.526, respectively. Estimated mean TFNP growth is 1.5% per year, with nutrient-orientated technological progress contributing 0.8%.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Viet-Ngu Hoang & Tim Coelli, 2009. "Measurement Of Agricultural Total Factor Productivity Growth Incorporating Environmental Factors- A Nutrients Balance Approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032009, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
  • Handle: RePEc:qld:uqcepa:38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.uq.edu.au/files/5271/WP032009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susanto Basu & David N. Weil, 1998. "Appropriate Technology and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1025-1054.
    2. Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 120-142, March.
    3. Hailu, Atakelty & Veeman, Terrence S., 2001. "Alternative methods for environmentally adjusted productivity analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 211-218, September.
    4. S Reinhard & G Thijssen, 2000. "Nitrogen efficiency of Dutch dairy farms: a shadow cost system approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 27(2), pages 167-186, June.
    5. Tim J. Coelli & D. S. Prasada Rao, 2005. "Total factor productivity growth in agriculture: a Malmquist index analysis of 93 countries, 1980-2000," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(s1), pages 115-134, January.
    6. C. Lovell & Shawna Grosskopf & Eduardo Ley & Jesús Pastor & Diego Prior & Philippe Eeckaut, 1994. "Linear programming approaches to the measurement and analysis of productive efficiency," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 2(2), pages 175-248, December.
    7. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Tyteca, Daniel, 1996. "An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms--application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 161-175, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Daly, Herman E., 1992. "Is the entropy law relevant to the economics of natural resource scarcity?-- yes, of course it is!," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 91-95, July.
    10. Dowrick, Steve & Gemmell, Norman, 1991. "Industrialisation, Catching Up and Economic Growth: A Comparative Study across the World's Capitalist Economies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(405), pages 263-275, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Tim Coelli & Ludwig Lauwers & Guido Huylenbroeck, 2007. "Environmental efficiency measurement and the materials balance condition," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 3-12, October.
    13. Summers, Robert, 1973. "International Price Comparisons Based Upon Incomplete Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, March.
    14. repec:eee:ecomod:v:222:y:2011:i:1:p:164-175 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Russell W. Pittman, 1981. "Issue in Pollution Control: Interplant Cost Differences and Economies of Scale," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(1), pages 1-17.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Reinhard, Stijn & Knox Lovell, C. A. & Thijssen, Geert J., 2000. "Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables; estimated with SFA and DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 287-303, March.
    19. Seiford, Lawrence M. & Thrall, Robert M., 1990. "Recent developments in DEA : The mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 7-38.
    20. Yaisawarng, Suthathip & Klein, J Douglass, 1994. "The Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Controls on Productivity Change in the U.S. Electric Power Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 447-460, August.
    21. 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.
    22. Seiford, Lawrence M. & Zhu, Joe, 2002. "Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 16-20, October.
    23. Stijn Reinhard & C.A. Knox Lovell & Geert Thijssen, 1999. "Econometric Estimation of Technical and Environmental Efficiency: An Application to Dutch Dairy Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 44-60.
    24. Shaik, Saleem & Perrin, Richard K., 2001. "Agricultural Productivity and Environmental Impacts: The Role of Non-parametric Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20565, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    25. Pittman, Russell W, 1983. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons with Undesirable Outputs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 93(372), pages 883-891, December.
    26. Jules Pretty & Craig Brett & David Gee & Rachel Hine & Chris Mason & James Morison & Matthew Rayment & Gert Van Der Bijl & Thomas Dobbs, 2001. "Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 263-283.
    27. Robert Ayres, 1995. "Thermodynamics and process analysis for future economic scenarios," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(3), pages 207-230, October.
    28. Scheel, Holger, 2001. "Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 400-410, July.
    29. Atkinson, Anthony B & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1969. "A New View of Technological Change," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 79(315), pages 573-578, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:qld:uqcepa:38. 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: (SOE IT). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/decuqau.html .

    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.