Disaggregate productivity growth sources of regional industries in China

  • Lan-Bing Li
  • Cong-Cong Zhang
  • Jin-Li HuEmail author
  • Ching-Ren Chiu


This paper extends a global slack-based productivity indicator and constructs a unified framework that consists of global and factor levels of total factor productivity (TFP) to evaluate the performance of regional industries, thus enabling global productivity improvement based on factor-level sources. Evaluating regional industrial performance in China during 1995–2014, the findings reveal that rapid growth of industry in China is not only driven by a huge amount of input, but also by TFP improvement, with industrial productivity driven mainly by technology progress and presenting a gradually increasing trend. Regional productivity performances are imbalanced, in which the east ranks first due to its dual advantages of input and output factors. For source identification, input and output jointly contribute to industrial productivity improvement, but output has a much higher contribution ratio to industrial productivity improvement than input, because it is mainly rooted in desirable output. Finally, on the input side, labor is the primary factor driving input productivity improvement followed by energy, while capital productivity shows very slight growth.


Global slack-based productivity indicator (GSBPI) Factor-level productivity indicator Regional industrial growth Source identification 

JEL Classification

D24 O14 O47 R11 



The first author is grateful for financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71673151) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (63192310). The third and fourth authors thank Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology for partial financial support (MOST106-2410-H-009-047 and MOST105-2410-H-025-027). The authors thank two anonymous referees, an associate editor, and the chief editor of this journal for their valuable comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Ali E, Yang G (2016) A framework for measuring global Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index with CO2 emissions on Chinese manufacturing industries. Energy 115:840–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battese GE, Rao DSP (2002) Technology gap, efficiency and a stochastic metafrontier function. Int J Bus Econ 1:1–7Google Scholar
  3. Battese GE, Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ (2004) A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. J Prod Anal 21:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambers RG (1996) A new look at exact input, output, productivity, and technical change measurement. Maryland Agricultural Experimental StationGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers RG, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1996) Productivity growth in APEC countries. Pac Econ Rev 1(3):181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang TP, Hu JL (2010) Total-factor energy productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change: an empirical study of China. Appl Energy 87:3262–3270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang T, Hu JL, Chou RY, Sun L (2012) The sources of bank productivity growth in China during 2002–2009: a disaggregation view. J Bank Finance 36:1997–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung YH, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manage 51:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dakpo KH, Jeanneaux P, Latruffe L (2016) Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: recent developments, limits and future prospects in the non-parametric framework. Eur J Oper Res 259:347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diewert WE (1980) Capital and the theory of productivity measurement. Am Econ Rev 70:260–267Google Scholar
  11. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M, Zhang Z (1994) Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency changes in industrial countries. Am Econ Rev 84:66–83Google Scholar
  12. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Pasurka CA (2001) Accounting for air pollution emissions in measures of state manufacturing productivity growth. J Reg Sci 41:381–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Noh DW, Weber W (2005) Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J Econ 126:469–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Margaritis D (2008) Efficiency and productivity: Malmquist and more. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 608Google Scholar
  15. Grosskopf S (1993) Efficiency and productivity. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 160–194Google Scholar
  16. He F, Zhang Q, Lei J, Fu W, Xu X (2013) Energy efficiency and productivity change of China’s iron and steel industry: accounting for undesirable outputs. Energy Policy 54:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu JL, Chang TP (2016) Total-factor energy efficiency and its extensions: introduction, computation, and application. In: Zhu J (ed) Data envelopment analysis: a handbook of empirical studies and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IMF (2016) World Economic Outlook, October 2016: subdued demand symptoms and remediesGoogle Scholar
  19. Li LB, Liu BL (2015) Source identification and dynamic evolution of regional economic growth performance in China: based on input-level decomposition. Econ Res J 8:58–72 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  20. Li LB, Hu JL, Xia NC (2016) Industrial energy-pollution performance of regions in China based on a unified framework combining static and dynamic indexes. J Clean Prod 131:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murty MN, Kumar S (2002) Measuring the cost of environmental sustainable industrial development in India: a distance function approach. Environ Dev Econ 7:467–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murty S, Russell RR, Levkoff SB (2012) On modeling pollution-generating technologies. J Environ Econ Manag 64:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakano M, Managi S (2008) Regulatory reforms and productivity: an empirical analysis of the Japanese electricity industry. Energy Policy 36:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Donnell CJ, Rao DSP, Battese GE (2008) Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empir Econ 34:231–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oh DH (2010) A global Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index. J Prod Anal 34:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oh DH, Lee JD (2010) A metafrontier approach for measuring Malmquist productivity index. Empir Econ 32:46–64Google Scholar
  27. Pastor JT, Lovell CAK (2005) A global Malmquist productivity index. Econ Lett 88:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tulkens H, Vanden Eeckaut P (1995) Nonparametric efficiency, progress and regress measures for panel data: methodological aspects. Eur J Oper Res 80:474–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang N, Choi Y (2013) Total-factor carbon emission performance of fossil fuel power plants in China: a metafrontier non-radial Malmquist index analysis. Energy Econ 40:549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang N, Wang B (2015) A deterministic parametric metafrontier Luenberger indicator for measuring environmentally-sensitive productivity growth: a Korean fossil-fuel power case. Energy Econ 51:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.China Regional Economics Application LaboratoryNankai UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Collaborative Innovation Center for China EconomyTianjinChina
  3. 3.Institute of Urban and Regional EconomicsNankai UniversityTianjinChina
  4. 4.Institute of Business and ManagementNational Chiao Tung UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of Recreation and Sports ManagementUniversity of TaipeiTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations