Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 457–472 | Cite as

A shadow distance function decomposition of the environmental Kuznets curve: comparing the South China Sea and the Caribbean

  • Roberto Mosheim


This study decomposes the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 into scale, composition and technique effects for a sample of countries in the South China Sea and Caribbean basins, regions at risk of increased exposure to extreme tropical weather and at different developmental stages. Effect variation with respect to population density and investment proportion of GDP show evidence of more effective abatement activities and more appropriate technology in the South China Sea economies. The countries with the highest levels of technical efficiency in the different regions also have the most equal distribution of income and the highest population densities.


Environmental Kuznets curve CO2 Distance function 

JEL Classification

L25 L33 L95 



Many people were instrumental in making this article possible. Thanks to Jesus Pastor, Juan Aparicio and Luis Orea, the editors of this issue, and the Journal Editor, Robin Sickles, for their help through the entire process. I also would like to thank the attendants of the 2010 International Workshop on Efficiency and Productivity in Alicante, Spain, for their questions and comments when the first version of this paper was presented. Four anonymous referees provided incisive feedback. Particular thanks go to Boris Bravo-Ureta, Subal Kumbhakar, Laura Moore, and James MacDonald for their help, as well as to Alan Heston for his assistance with the Penn Tables and to the various World Bank officials who facilitated details of some of the variables employed in this study. Finally, many thanks to Knox Lovell, a scholar with multiple outputs: rigorous and relevant analysis produced jointly with travel and music. All mistakes are my own responsibility.


  1. Andreoni J, Levinson A (2001) The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. J Public Econ 80(2):269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asian Development Bank (2009) The economics of climate change in southeast Asia: a regional review. ADB, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson SE, Dorfman JH (2005) Bayesian measurement of productivity and efficiency in the presence of undesirable outputs: crediting electric utilities for reducing air pollution. J Econ 126:445–468Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson SE, Cornwell C, Honerkamp O (2003) Measuring and decomposing productivity change: stochastic distance function estimation versus data envelopment analysis. J Bus Econ Stat 21(2):284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltagi BH (2005) Econometric analysis of panel data, 3rd edn. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  6. Barro RJ, Lee JW (2010) A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010 Natl Bur Econ Res (15902) (data are available at
  7. Battese GE, Coelli TJ (1995) A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empir Econ 20(2):325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caudill SB, Ford JM (1993) Biases in frontier estimates due to heteroskedasticity. Econ Lett 41:17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caudill SB, Ford JM, Gropper DM (1995) Firm estimation and firm-specific inefficiency measures in the presence of heteroskedasticity. J Bus Econ Stat 13(1):105–111Google Scholar
  10. Coelli TJ, Estache A, Perelman S, Trujillo L (2003) A primer on efficiency measurement for utilities and transport regulators. WBI Development Studies World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ (2005) An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis, Scnd edn. Springer Science + Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) (2013), Global monitoring division, NOAA, Accessed 14 June 2013
  14. Economic Commission in Latin America and the Caribbean (2010) The economics of climate change in Central America: summary 2010, ECLAC, Accessed 14 Feb 2012
  15. Economist (2011) Climate change: the sad road from Kyoto to Durban. The Economist Magazine, Leaders, December 3Google Scholar
  16. EIA (2012) Energy information administration, international energy statistics. Accessed 11 Feb 2012
  17. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71(1):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Yaisawarng C (1993) Derivation of shadow prices for undesirable outputs: a distance function approach. Rev Econ Stat 75(2):374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene WH (1993) The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 68–119Google Scholar
  21. Greene WH (2008) The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 92–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Natl Bur Econ Res (3914)Google Scholar
  23. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hailu A, Veeman TS (2000) Environmentally sensitive productivity analysis of the Canadian pulp and paper industry, 1959–1994: an input distance function approach. J Environ Econ Manag 2000(3):251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harbaugh WT, Levinson A, Wilson DM (2002) Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Rev Econ Stat 84(3):541–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (1994) Penn World Table Version 5.6, December, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  27. Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (2009) Penn World Table Version 6.3, August, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsiao CA (1986) Analysis of panel data. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. International Energy Agency (2011) Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2 °C is getting bleaker. Latest information. International Energy Agency
  30. International Energy Agency (2012) World energy outlook 2012 factsheet. how will global energy markets evolve to 2035?
  31. IPCC (2012) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  32. Jeon MB, Sickles RC (2004) The role of environmental factors in growth accounting. J Appl Econ 19(5):567–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson S, Larson W, Papageorgiou C, Subramanian A (2009) Is newer better? Penn World Table revisions and their impact on growth estimates. Natl Bur Econ Res (15455)Google Scholar
  34. Kearsley A, Riddel M (2010) A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 69(4):905–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kennedy P (2003) A guide to econometrics, 5th edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Kumbhakar SC, Lovell CAK (2000) Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kumbhakar SC, Wang H (2006) Pitfalls in the estimation of a cost function that ignores allocative inefficiency: a Monte Carlo analysis. J Econ 134(2):317–340Google Scholar
  38. Kumbhakar SC, Ghosh S, McGuckin JT (1991) A generalized production frontier approach for estimating determinants of inefficiency in US dairy farms. J Bus Econ Stat 9(3):279–286Google Scholar
  39. LABORSTA (2012) An international labour office database on labour statistics operated by the ILO Department of Statistics. ( Accessed 14 Feb 2012
  40. Levinson A (2009) Technology, international trade, and pollution from US manufacturing. Am Econ Rev 99(5):2177–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nadiri MI, Son W (1999) Sources of growth in East Asian economies. In: Fu TT, Huang CJ, Lovell CAK (eds) Economic efficiency and productivity growth in the Asia-Pacific region, Academia studies in Asian Economies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northhampton, MA, pp 43–66Google Scholar
  42. New York Times (2011) In: Gillis J (ed) Carbon emissions show biggest jump ever recorded. New York Times December 4 environment sectionGoogle Scholar
  43. Nordhaus WD (2007) A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3):686–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of development. Working paper WP238. Technology and Employment Programme. International Labour Office. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  45. Pasurka C (2008) Perspectives on pollution abatement and competitiveness: theory, data, and analyses. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(2):194–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter ME, van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9(4):97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reifschneider D, Stevenson R (1991) Systematic departures from the frontier: a framework for the analysis of firm inefficiency. Int Econ Rev 32(3):715–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rezek JP, Rogers K (2008) Decomposing the CO2-income tradeoff: an output distance function approach. Environ Dev Econ 13(4):457–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodriguez-Alvarez A, Del Rosal I, Baños-Pino J (2007) The cost of strikes in the Spanish mining sector: modelling an undesirable input with a distance function. J Prod Anal 27(1):73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sen A (1992) Inequality reexamined. Russell Sage Foundation/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA/New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and crosscountry evidence. Background paper for the World Development Report 1992 Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Shephard RW (1953) Cost and production functions. Princeton University, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. Shephard RW (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  54. Stata (2011) Longitudinal-data/panel-data reference manual, release 12. Stata Press, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  55. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32(8):1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Stern N, Taylor C (2007) Climate change: risk ethics and the Stern review. Science 317(5835):202–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taiwan’s Council for Economic Planning and Development (TCEPD, 2012) ( 14 Feb 2012
  59. Torras M, Boyce JK (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25(2):147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. WBIIASAVID (2012) World databank, Education Statistics (EdStats), (select education statistics). Accessed 29 March 2012
  61. WBPRE (2012) World Bank’s poverty reduction and equity page, measuring inequality. Accessed 29 March 2012
  62. WDI (2012) World development indicators, Accessed 14 Feb 2012
  63. Weitzman ML (2007) A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3):703–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. World Development Report (1992) World development report 1992. Development and the environment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. World Development Report (2010) Development and climate change. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Research ServiceUSDAWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations