International Comparison of Environmental Efficiency (1990–2008)

  • Masayuki ShimizuEmail author
  • Shota Moriwaki


In the 2000s, the deterioration of environmental conditions became an increasingly serious issue in developing countries, because this began to have a negative impact on their economic growth. According to the World Bank (2009), climate change arising from environmental deterioration could result in a permanent deceleration in economic growth in developing countries. To maintain sustainable development, these countries need to reduce environmental pollution without sacrificing economic growth. This appears to be a particularly challenging balancing task for developing countries, since they are confronted with serious environmental problems and low economic growth. In this study, we specifically focus on developing countries and the analysis of environmental efficiency, which simultaneously accounts for CO2, SO2, and NOX. To accomplish this, we estimate the environmental efficiency of these three environmental pollutants using a Hicks-Moorsteen productivity index from 1990 to 2008 for both high income and low and medium income countries. Furthermore, using a cross-section data set and a panel data set of environmental efficiency, we examine whether the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis is applicable to all countries from the 1990s to 2000s. Several studies have estimated environmental efficiency and examined the EKC hypothesis in developed countries from the 1970s to 1990s; however, the developing countries were not addressed in this context until the 2000s. From our analysis, we obtain the following three results. First, we confirm that developed countries have low environmental efficiency. This means that developed countries have significant potential to reduce environmental pollutants but low potential for economic growth. Second, we recognize that environmental efficiency in developing countries differs by region and country. Some developing countries have significant potential to reduce environmental pollutants and high potential for economic growth. Third, we found that the EKC hypothesis examined for the three environmental pollutants is applicable from the 1990s to 2000s.

Key words

Hicks-Moorsteen productivity index Environmental efficiency Environmental Kuznets curve 

JEL Classification

O13 Q53 Q56 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24530323.


  1. Färe, R. and S. Grosskopf. 2003. New Directions: Efficiency and Productivity. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  2. World Bank. 2006. Where is the Wealth of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. World Bank. 2009. World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundell, R. and S. Bond. 1998. Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models. Journal of Econometrics 87 (1): 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Im, K.S., M.H. Pesaran, Y. Shin. 2003. Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics 115(1): 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, C.A.K. Lovell, C. Pasurka. 1989. Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach. Review Economics and Statistics 71 (1): 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, C. Pasurka. 2007. Pollution Abatement Activities and Traditional Productivity. Ecological Economics 62 (3-4): 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, F. Hernandez-Sancho. 2004. Environmental Performance: An Index Number Approach. Resource and Energy Economics 26 (4): 343–352.Google Scholar
  9. Grossman, G.M. and A.B. Krueger. 1995. Economic Growth and the Environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (2): 353–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Levin, A., C.-F. Lin, C.-S.J. Chu. 2002. Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics 108(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Managi, S. and P.R. Jena. 2008. Environmental Productivity and Kuznets Curve in India. Ecological Economics 65 (2): 432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Managi, S. and S. Kaneko. 2009. Environmental Performance and Returns to Pollution Abatement in China. Ecological Economics 68 (6): 1643–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yörük, B.K. and O. Zaim. 2006. The Kuznets Curve and the Effect of International Regulations on Environmental Efficiency. Economics Bulletin 17 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
  14. Yörük, B.K. and O. Zaim. 2008. International Regulations and Environmental Performance. Applied Economics 40 (7): 807–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman, G.M. and A.B. Krueger. 1993. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. (in: P, Garber-ed., The US Mexico Free Trade Agreement), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roodman, D. 2006. How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Working Paper Number 103, Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). 2011. Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.2,, [Accessed 3.2.2012]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Economic Policy Association (JEPA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law and LettersUniversity of the RyukyusOkinawaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of EconomicsOsaka City UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations