Heterogeneous technologies, strategic groups and environmental efficiency technology gaps for European countries

Energy Policy

Volumn 83, Issue , 2015, Pages 277-287

  Kounetas, Konstantinos ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

Author keywords

Cluster techniques; Environmental efficiency; Heterogeneous technologies; Metafrontier; Technology gap

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; EFFICIENCY; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS;

CLUSTER TECHNIQUES; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY; HETEROGENEOUS TECHNOLOGY; METAFRONTIER; TECHNOLOGY GAP;

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY;

APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; KYOTO PROTOCOL; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; SPILLOVER EFFECT; STRATEGIC APPROACH; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

EUROPE;

EID: 84930082963     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.036     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abramovitz M. Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. J. Econ. Hist. 1986, 46.
2. Acemoglu, D., 2014. Localized and Biased Technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz's New View, Induced Innovations, and Directed Technological Change. NBER. doi:10.3386/w20060.
3. Alberto Martinelli A., Midttun A. Introduction. towards green growth and multilevel governance. Energy Policy 2012, 48:1-4.
4. Archibugi D., Coco A. Measuring technological capabilities at the country level. a survey and a menu for choice. Res. Policy 2005, 34:175-194.
5. The Economics of Information Networks 1992, Elsevier North Holland, Amsterdam. C. Antonelli (Ed.).
6. Antonelli C. The Economics of Localized Technological Change and Industrial Dynamics 1995, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
7. Antonelli C. The network of networks. localized technological change in telecommunications and productivity growth. Inf. Econ. Policy 1996, 8:315-335.
8. Atkinson A.B., Stiglitz J.E. A new view of technological change. Econ. J. 1969, 573-578.
9. Banker R.R., Morey R.C. The use of categorical variables in data envelopment analysis. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32(12):1613-1627.
10. Barros C.P., Managi S., Matousek R. The technical efficiency of the Japanese banks. non-radial directional performance measurement with undesirable outputs. Omega 2012, 40:1-8.
11. Battese G.E., Rao D.S.P., O'Donnell C.J. A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. J. Prod. Anal. 2004, 21:91-103.
12. Bell M., Pavitt K. Technological accumulation and industrial growth. contrasts between developed and developing countries. Ind. Corp. Change 1993, 2(2):157-209.
13. Bell, M., Pavitt, K., 1995. The development of technological capabilities. In: Haque, Dans U., Trade, Technology and International Competitiveness. Word Bank, Washington.
14. Bell M., Pavitt K. Technological accumulation and industrial growth. contrasts between developed and developing countries. Technology, Globalization and Economic Performance 1997, 83-137. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. D. Archibugi, J. Michie (Eds.).
15. Camarero M., Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Tamarit C. Is the environmental performance of industrialized countries converging? A 'SURE' approach to testing for convergence. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66:653-661.
16. Carraro C., Gerlagh R., van der Zwaan B.C.C. Endogenous technical change in environmental macroeconomics. Resour. Energy Econ. 2003, 25:1-10.
17. Castelli L., Pesenti R., Ukovich W. DEA-like models for efficiency evaluations of specialized and interdependent units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 132(2):274-286.
18. CEC, 2007. Green Paper. From the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe-Options for EU Action (No. COM(2007) 354 final {SEC(2007) 849}). Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
19. CEC, 2013. Green Paper. A 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies. From the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe-Options for EU Action (No. COM(2013) 354 final {SEC(2013) 169}). Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
20. Chambers F.G., Chung Y., Fare R. Benefit and distance functions. J. Econ. Theory 1996, 70:407-419.
21. Chambers F.G., Chung Y., Fare R. Profit, directional distance functions and Nerlovian efficiency. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 1998, 98(2):351-364.
22. Chang T.P., Hu J.L. Total-factor energy productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change. an empirical study of China. Appl. Energy 2010, 87:3262-3270.
23. Cheng G., Zervopoulos P. Estimating the technical efficiency of health care systems. a cross-country comparison using the directional distance function. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 238(3):899-910.
24. Chiu C., Liou J., Wu P., Fang C. Decomposition of the environmental inefficiency of the meta-frontier with undesirable output. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:1392-1399.
25. 2 emissions in China. a slacks-based efficiency measure. Appl. Energy 2012, 98:198-208.
26. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. Absorptive capacity. new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35(1):128-152.
27. Cook W.D., Chai D., Doyle J., Green R. Hierarchies and groups in DEA. J. Prod. Anal. 1998, 10:177-198.
28. Cooper R.W., Haltiwanger J.C. On the nature of capital adjustment costs. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2006, 73(3):611-633.
29. Cuesta A.R., Lovell C.A.K., Jofio L.J. Environmental efficiency measurement with translog distance functions. a parametric approach. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2232-2242.
30. DIRECTIVE 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on Energy Efficiency, Amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and Repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC.
31. Dollar D. Technological innovation, capital mobility, and the product cycle in North-South trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76:177-190.
32. Dosi G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 1982, 11:147-162.
33. Dyson R.G., Allen R., Camanho A.S., Podinovski V.V., Sarrico C.S., Shale E.A. Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 132(2):245-259.
34. Halkos G.E., Tzeremes N.G. Modelling the effect of national culture on multinational banks performance. a conditional robust nonparametric frontier analysis. Econ. Mod. 2011, 28:515-525.
35. Fare R., Grosskopf S. Theory and application of directional distance functions. J. Prod. Anal. 2000, 13:93-103.
36. Fare R., Grosskopf S. New Directions: Efficiency and Productivity 2004, Kluwer, Boston.
37. Fare R., Grosskopf S. Directional distance functions and slacks-based measures of efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200:320-322.
38. Fare R., Grosskopf S., Dong-Woon N., Weber W. Characteristics of a polluting technology. theory and practice. J. Econ. 2005, 126:469-492.
39. Fukuyama H., Weber W.L. A directional slacks-based measure of technical efficiency. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2009, 43:274-287.
40. 2 emissions. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2011, 13:89-102.
41. Haas H., Murphy F. Compensating for non-homogeneity in decision-making units in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003, 144:530-544.
42. Harrigan R.K. An application of clustering for strategic group analysis. Strateg. Manag. J. 1985, 6:55-73.
43. Hsiao B., Chern C.C., Yu M.M. Measuring the relative efficiency of IC design firms using the directional distance function and a meta-frontier approach. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53(4):881-891.
44. 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.
45. Jaffe A.B., Newell R.G., Stavins R.N. A tale of two market failures. technology and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 54:164-174.
46. Jordan A., Schout A., Unfried M. Policy coordination. Environmental Policy in the European Union: Contexts, Actors and Policy Dynamics (3e) 2012, Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA. A.J. Jordan, C. Adelle (Eds.).
47. Kanellakis M., Martinopoulos G., Zachariadis T. European energy policy-A review. Energy Policy 2013, 62:1020-1030.
48. Karlaftis M.G., Vlahogianni E.I. Statistics versus neural networks in transportation research. differences, similarities and some insights. Transport. Res. C-Emerg. Technol. 2011, 19(3):387-399.
49. Kemp R. Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability. the problem of technological regime shifts. Futures 1994, 26(10):1023-1046.
50. Kontolaimou A., Kounetas K., Mourtos I., Tsekouras K. Technology gaps in European banking. put the blame on inputs or outputs?. Econ. Model. 2012, 29(5):1798-1808.
51. Kontolaimou A., Tsekouras K. Are cooperatives the weakest link in European banking? A non-parametric meta-frontier approach. J. Bank. Financ. 2010, 34:1946-1957.
52. Kounetas K., Mourtos I., Tsekouras K.D. Efficiency decompositions for heterogeneous technologies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. Res. 2009, 99:209-218.
53. Krugman P. Increasing returns, monopolistic competition and international trade. J. Int. Econ. 1997, 9:469-479.
54. Kumar S. Environmentally sensitive productivity growth. a global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberg index. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56:280-293.
55. Kumar S., Khanna N. Measurement of environmental efficiency and productivity. a cross-country analysis. Environ. Develop. Econ. 2009, 14(4):473-495.
56. Lenschow A. Environmental Integration 2002, Earthscan, London.
57. Mahlberg B., Sahoo B.K. Radial and non-radial decompositions of Luenberger productivity indicator with an illustrative application. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 131:721-726.
58. Martin R., Sunley P. Paul Krugman's geographical economics and its implications for regional development theory. a critical assessment. Econ. Geogr. 1996, 72(3):259-292.
59. MacKenzie, D., 1992. Economic and sociological explanations of technical change. In: Coombs, Rod, Saviotti, Paolo, Walsh Vivien (Eds.), Technological Change and Company Strategies. Academic Press, London, p. 30.
60. Nelson Richard R., Winter Sidney G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change 1982, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
61. Nelson R.R., Wright G. The rise and fall of American technological leadership. the postwar era in an historical perspective. J. Econ. Lit. 1992, 30:1931-1964.
62. Newman H.H. Strategic groups and the structure-performance relationship. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1978, 60(3):417-427.
63. O'Donnell C.J., Rao D.S.P., Battese G.E. Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratio. Empir. Econ. 2008, 34:231-255.
64. Park K.S., Lee K.W., Park M.S., Kim D. Joint use of DEA and constrained canonical correlation analysis for efficiency valuations involving categorical variables. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2009, 60(12):1775-1785.
65. Porter E.M. The structure within industries and companies' performance. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1979, 60:214-227.
66. Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Reig-Martinez E., Hernandez-Sancho F. Directional distance functions and environmental regulation. Resour. Energy Econ. 2005, 27:131-142.
67. Riccardi R., Oggioni G., Toninelli R. Efficiency analysis of world cement industry in presence of undesirable output. application of data envelopment analysis and directional distance function. Energy Policy 2012, 44:140-152.
68. Saen R.F., Memariani A., Loftfi F.H. Determining relative efficiency of slightly nonhomogeneous decision making units by data envelopment analysis. a case study in IROST. Appl. Math. Comput. 2005, 165(2):313-328.
69. Sagar A.D., van der Zwaan B. Technological innovation in the energy sector. R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing. Energy Policy 2006, 34(17):2601-2608.
70. Samoilenko S., Osei-Bryson Kweku-Muata Increasing the discriminatory power of DEA in the presence of the sample heterogeneity with cluster analysis and decision trees. Expert Syst. Appl. 2008, 34:1568-1581.
71. Samoilenko S., Osei-Bryson Kweku-Muata Determining sources of relative inefficiency in heterogeneous samples. methodology using cluster analysis, DEA and neural networks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 206(2):479-487.
72. Treffers D.J., Faaij A.P.C., Spakman J., Seebregts A. Exploring the possibilities for setting up sustainable energy systems for the long term. two visions for the Dutch energy system in 2050. Energy Policy 2005, 33(13):1723-1743.
73. Wang D., Kumbhakar S.C. Strategic groups and heterogeneous technologies. an application to the US banking industry. Macroecon. Financ. Emerg. Mark. Econ. 2009, 2(1):31-57.
74. Watanabe M., Tanaka K. Efficiency analysis of Chinese industry. a directional distance function approach. Energy Policy 2007, 35:6323-6331.
75. Winter S. The logic of appropriability. from Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Res. Policy 2006, 35:1100-1106.
76. Xiao M.D., Li C.D. Study of DEA and its application with non-homogeneity decision making units. Xi Tong Gong Cheng Yu Dian Zi Ji Shu/Syst. Eng. Electron. 2007, 29(1):57-59.
77. Yu-Ying Lin E., Chen Ping-Yu, Chen Chi-Chung Measuring the environmental efficiency of countries. a directional distance function metafrontier approach. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 119:134-142.
78. Zaim O., Taskin F. Environmental efficiency in carbon dioxide emissions in the OECD. a non-parametric approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 58(2):95-107.
79. 2 emission performance and technology gaps in fossil fuel electricity generation in Korea. a meta-frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy 2013, 56:653-662.
80. 2 emission performance in electricity generation. a non-radial directional distance function approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 221:625-635.