Environmental policy efficiency: measurement and determinants

  • Antonis AdamEmail author
  • Sofia Tsarsitalidou
Original Paper


This paper provides measurement of relative public environmental policy efficiency (EPE) at country level. We use data envelopment analysis methods to construct measures of relative efficiency, for 39 countries over the period 1995–2010. Then, we estimate a truncated regression model, using the bootstrap method of Simar and Wilson (J Econom 136(1):31–64, 2007) in order to determine the factors that affect EPE. Our findings indicate that (i) EPE is affected both by economic and political variables, (ii) the effect of the political regime on EPE depends on the level of economic development. Our results are robust across alternative specifications.


Policy efficiency Democracy DEA Environmental policy 



We would like to thank Fabio Antoniou, Thanasis Lapatinas, Dimitris Panayotou, Nikos Tsakiris and Thomas Moutos for valuable suggestions and discussions. We have also benefited from comments by Nikos Benos, Michael Chletsos, Manthos Delis, Anastasia Litina, Nikos Mylonidis as well as the participants at the seminar series of the University of Ioannina. Any remaining errors are ours. This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund-ESF) and Greek National Funds through the Operational Program ’Education and Lifelong Learning’ of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)-Research Funding Program THALIS.


  1. Adam A (2009) Fiscal reliance on tariff revenues: In search of a political economy explanation? Rev Dev Econ 13(4):610–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam A, Delis M, Kammas P (2011a) Public sector efficiency: leveling the playing field between OECD countries. Public Choice 146(1):163–183Google Scholar
  3. Adam A, Delis M, Kammas P (2011b) Are democratic governments more efficient? Eur J Polit Econ 27(1):75–86Google Scholar
  4. Adam A, Delis M, Kammas P (2014) Fiscal decentralization and public sector efficiency: evidence from OECD countries. Econ Gov 15(1):17–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Afonso A, St. Aubyn M (2006) Cross-country efficiency of secondary education provision: a semi-parametric analysis with non-discretionary inputs. Econ Model 23(3):476–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Afonso A, Schuknecht L, Tanzi V (2005) Public sector efficiency: an international comparison. Public Choice 123(3):321–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Afonso A, Schuknecht L, Tanzi V (2010) Public sector efficiency: evidence for new EU member states and emerging markets. Appl Econ 42(17):2147–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Alesina A, Devleeschauwer A, Easterly W, Kurlat S, Wacziarg R (2003) Fractionalization. J Econ Growth 8(2):155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Alesina A, La Ferrara E (2005) Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. J Public Econ 89(5–6):897–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borge L-E, Falch T, Tovmo P (2008) Public sector efficiency: the roles of political and budgetary institutions, fiscal capacity, and democratic participation. Public Choice 136(3):475–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bravo-Ureta B, Solis D, Lopez VM, Maripani J, Thiam A, Rivas T (2007) Technical efficiency in farming: a meta-regression analysis. J Prod Anal 27(1):57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charron N, Lapuente V (2010) Does democracy produce quality of government? Eur J Poli Res 49(4):443–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheon A, Urpelainen J (2013) How do competing interest groups influence environmental policy? the case of renewable electricity in industrialized democracies, 1989–2007. Polit Stud 61(4):874–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coelli T, Lauwers L, Huylenbroec GV (2005) Formulation of technical, economic and environmental efficiency measures that are consistent with the materials balance condition. CEPA Working Papers Series WP062005, School of Economics, University of Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  15. Congleton RD (1992) Political institutions and pollution control. Rev Econ Stat 74(3):412–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cropper ML, Evans WN, Berard SJ, Ducla-Soares MM, Portney PR (1992) The determinants of pesticide regulation: a statistical analysis of EPA decision making. J Polit Econ 100(1):175–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devlin RA, Grafton RQ (1994) Tradeable permits, missing markets, and technology. Environ Resour Econ 4(2):171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutt P, Mitra D (2005) Political ideology and endogenous trade policy: an empirical investigation. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Easterly W, Levine R (1997) Africa’s growth tragedy: policies and ethnic divisions. Q J Econ 112(4):1203–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edvardsen DF, Førsund FR, Kittelsen SAC (2008) Far out or alone in the crowd: a taxonomy of peers in dea. J Prod Anal 29(3):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1994) An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC monographs on statistics and applied probability. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Fearon JD (2003) Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. J Econ Growth 8(2):195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feenstra RC, Inklaar R, Timmer MP (2015) The next generation of the penn world table. Am Econ Rev 105(10):3150–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fried H, Lovell C, Schmidt S, Yaisawarng S (2002) Accounting for environmental effects and statistical noise in data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 17(1):157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fullerton D, Hong I, Metcalf GE (2001) A tax on output of the polluting industry is not a tax on pollution: the importance of hitting the target. In: Carraro C, Metcalf GE (eds) Behavioral and distributional effects of environmental policy. NBER chapters. National Bureau of Economic Research Inc., New York, pp 13–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gayer T (2000) Neighborhood demographics and the distribution of hazardous waste risks: an instrumental variables estimation. J Regul Econ 17(2):131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gupta S, Verhoeven M (2001) The efficiency of government expenditure: experiences from Africa. J Policy Model 23(4):433–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hauner D (2008) Explaining differences in public sector efficiency: evidence from Russia’s regions. World Dev 36(10):1745–1765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. La Porta R, Lopez-de Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny R (1999) The quality of government. J Law Econ Organ 15(1):222–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Latruffe L, Balcombe K, Davidova S, Zawalinska K (2004) Determinants of technical efficiency of crop and livestock farms in Poland. Appl Econ 36(12):1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer L, Brinkman S, van Kesteren L, Leprince-Ringuet N, van Boxmeer F (2014) IPCC, 2014: climate change 2014—synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  32. Millimet DL, Roy J (2016) Empirical tests of the pollution haven hypothesis when environmental regulation is endogenous. J Appl Econ 31(4):652–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murdoch JC, Sandler T (1997) The voluntary provision of a pure public good: the case of reduced CFC emissions and the Montreal protocol. J Public Econ 63(3):331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruggiero J, Vitaliano DF (1999) Assessing the efficiency of public schools using data envelopment analysis and frontier regression. Contemp Econ Policy 17(3):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simar L, Wilson PW (2007) Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econom 136(1):31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tanzi V, Schuknecht L (1997) Reconsidering the fiscal role of government: the international perspective. Am Econ Rev 87(2):164–168Google Scholar
  37. Tanzi V, Schuknecht L (2000) Public spending in the 20th century. Cambridge books online. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of IoanninaIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations