Environmental Performance or Productivity Loss?

  • Shital SharmaEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 20)


The principle of sustainable growth and development has influenced much of the environmental policies that have come into existence in the last three decades in the USA. Since the establishment of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, the regulations put in place have been increasingly stringent on the environmental standards they set over time. For instance, the Clean Air Act introduced in 1963 and the Clean Water Act founded in 1948 have been amended multiple times, each time tightening the control on the type and amount of emission allowed into the environment. This has no doubt accrued much benefit to the society within the USA in the form of reduced morbidity, increased recreational opportunity, cleaner living environment, increased ecosystem vitality, and possible increased land values (Palmer et al. 1995). Such outcomes are essential for an environmentally sustainable future and are also the cornerstone of a society that holds itself accountable to future generations. However, at the same time concerns have also been raised as to whether these benefits are worth the cost of such regulations. In addition to the direct costs of pollution abatement, proponents of this view have blamed stifled economic growth, decline of labor and capital productivity, as well as loss of jobs on such increasingly stringent environmental regulations.


Data Envelopment Analysis Total Suspended Solid Efficiency Score Paper Mill Undesirable Output 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I am very grateful to my advisor Wayne Gray for his continuous advice, support, and encouragement during this research. I am indebted to my committee members Junfu Zhang and Chih Ming Tan for providing valuable inputs. I also greatly benefitted from discussions with Wang Jin during the course of this research. Finally, I thank numerous conference and seminar participants for helpful comments and suggestions.


Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. All results have been reviewed to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed.


  1. Aiken DV, Färe R, Grosskopf S, Pasurka CA (2009) Pollution abatement and productivity growth: evidence from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States. Environ Resour Econ 44(1):11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arocena P (2008) Cost and quality gains from diversification and vertical integration in the electricity industry: a DEA approach. Energy Econ 30(1):39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asmild M, Paradi JC, Aggarwall V, Schaffnit C (2004) Combining DEA window analysis with the Malmquist index approach in a study of the Canadian Banking Industry. J Prod Anal 21(1):67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball E, Fare R, Grosskopf S, Zaim O (2005) Accounting for externalities in the measurement of productivity growth: the Malmquist cost productivity measure. Struct Change Econ Dyn 16(3):374–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 30(9):1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbera AJ, McConnell VD (1986) Effects of pollution control on industry productivity: a factor demand approach. J Ind Econ 35:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barth JR, Lin C, Ma Y, Seade J, Song FM (2013) Do bank regulation, supervision and monitoring enhance or impede bank efficiency? J Bank Financ 37(8):2879–2892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg SA, Forsund FR, Jansen ES (1992) Malmquist indices of productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking, 1980-89. Scand J Econ 94:S211–S228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowlin WF, Charnes A, Cooper WW, Sherman HD (1984) Data envelopment analysis and regression approaches to efficiency estimation and evaluation. Ann Oper Res 2(1):113–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyd GA, McClelland JD (1999) The impact of environmental constraints on productivity improvement in integrated paper plants. J Environ Econ Manage 38(2):121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brännlund R, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1995) Environmental regulation and profitability: an application to Swedish pulp and paper mills. Environ Resour Econ 6(1):23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of DMU. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christainsen GB, Haveman RH (1981) Public regulations and the slowdown in productivity growth. Am Econ Rev 71(2):320–325Google Scholar
  14. Chung YH, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manage 51:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cordeiro JJ, Sarkis J (1997) Environmental proactivism and firm performance: evidence from security analyst earnings forecasts. Bus Strategy Environ 6(2):104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Nicola A, Gitto S, Mancuso P (2012) Uncover the predictive structure of healthcare efficiency applying a bootstrapped data envelopment analysis. Expert Syst Appl 39(12):10495–10499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denison EF (1979) Accounting for slower economic growth: the United States in the 1970’s. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Färe R, Grosskopf S (2000) Theory and application of directional distance functions. J Prod Anal 13(2):93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Pasurka CA (2007) Pollution abatement activities and traditional productivity. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):673–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A 120(3):253–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fethi MD, Pasiouras F (2010) Assessing bank efficiency and performance with operational research and artificial intelligence techniques: a survey. Eur J Oper Res 204(2):189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golany B, Roll Y (1989) An application procedure for DEA. Omega 17(3):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gollop FM, Roberts MJ (1983) Environmental regulations and productivity growth: the case of fossil-fueled electric power generation. J Polit Econ 91(4):654–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gorman MF, Ruggiero J (2008) Evaluating US state police performance using data envelopment analysis. Int J Prod Econ 113(2):1031–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray WB (1987) The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA and the productivity slowdown. Am Econ Rev 77(5):998–1006Google Scholar
  27. Gray WB, Shadbegian RJ (1993) Environmental regulation and manufacturing productivity at the plant level. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray WB, Shadbegian RJ (1995) Pollution abatement costs, regulation, and plant-level productivity. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gray WB, Shadbegian RJ (2004) ‘Optimal’ pollution abatement—whose benefits matter, and how much? J Environ Econ Manage 47(3):510–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halkos GE, Tzeremes NG (2013) A conditional directional distance function approach for measuring regional environmental efficiency: evidence from UK regions. Eur J Oper Res 227(1):182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hart SL, Ahuja G (1996) Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Bus Strategy Environ 5(1):30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Havrylchyk O (2006) Efficiency of the Polish banking industry: foreign versus domestic banks. J Bank Financ 30(7):1975–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hollingsworth B (2003) Non-parametric and parametric applications measuring efficiency in health care. Health Care Manag Sci 6(4):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hollingsworth B (2008) The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care delivery. Health Econ 17(10):1107–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hollingsworth B, Dawson PJ, Maniadakis N (1999) Efficiency measurement of health care: a review of non‐parametric methods and applications. Health Care Manag Sci 2(3):161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karlaftis MG (2004) A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems. Eur J Oper Res 152(2):354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knox Lovell CA, Pastor JT, Turner JA (1995) Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: a comparison of European and non-European countries. Eur J Oper Res 87(3):507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koopmans TC (1951) Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. Act Anal Prod Alloc 13:33–37Google Scholar
  39. Lin R-C, Mustafa Y, Pasupathy KS (2013) Multi-objective simulation optimization using data envelopment analysis and genetic algorithm: specific application to determining optimal resource levels in surgical services. Omega 41(5):881–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Markovits-Somogyi R (2011) Measuring efficiency in transport: the state of the art of applying data envelopment analysis. Transport 26(1):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nemoto J, Goto M (2003) Measurement of dynamic efficiency in production: an application of data envelopment analysis to Japanese electric utilities. J Prod Anal 19(2):191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nolan JF, Ritchie PC, Rowcroft JE (2002) Identifying and measuring public policy goals: ISTEA and the US bus transit industry. J Econ Behav Organ 48(3):291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Norsworthy JR, Harper MJ, Kunze K (1979) The slowdown in productivity growth: analysis of some contributing factors. Brookings Pap Econ Act 1979(2):387–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pacudan R, De Guzman E (2002) Impact of energy efficiency policy to productive efficiency of electricity distribution industry in the Philippines. Energy Econ 24(1):41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmer K, Oates WE, Portney PR (1995) Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm? J Econ Perspect 9(4):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter M (1991) America’s green strategy. Sci Am 264(4):168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Porter M (1996) America’s green strategy. Business and the environment. Earthscan, London, pp 33–35Google Scholar
  48. Repetto R, Rothman D, Faeth P, Austin D (1997) Has environmental protection really reduced productivity growth? Challenge 40(1):46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rezitis AN (2006) Productivity growth in the Greek banking industry: a non-parametric approach. J Appl Econ 9(1):119–138Google Scholar
  50. Scheel H (2001) Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. Eur J Oper Res 132(2):400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shadbegian RJ, Gray WB (2005) Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: a production function approach. Ecol Econ 54(2–3):196–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shadbegian RJ, Gray WB (2006) Assessing multi-dimensional performance: environmental and economic outcomes. J Prod Anal 26(3):213–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shen Y, Hermans E, Brijs T, Wets G, Vanhoof K (2012) Road safety risk evaluation and target setting using data envelopment analysis and its extensions. Accid Anal Prev 48:430–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shephard RW, Gale D, Kuhn HW (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  55. Staub RB, da Silva e Souza G, Tabak BM (2010) Evolution of bank efficiency in Brazil: a DEA approach. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2001) Slack-adjusted DEA for time series analysis: performance measurement of Japanese electric power generation industry in 1984–1993. Eur J Oper Res 133(2):232–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Telle K, Larsson J (2007) Do environmental regulations hamper productivity growth? How accounting for improvements of plants’ environmental performance can change the conclusion. Ecol Econ 61(2):438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thanassoulis E (1993) A comparison of regression analysis and data envelopment analysis as alternative methods for performance assessments. J Oper Res Soc 44(11):1129–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thanassoulis E (1995) Assessing police forces in England and Wales using data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 87(3):641–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vaninsky A (2006) Efficiency of electric power generation in the United States: analysis and forecast based on data envelopment analysis. Energy Econ 28(3):326–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10:56–66Google Scholar
  62. Verschelde M, Rogge N (2012) An environment-adjusted evaluation of citizen satisfaction with local police effectiveness: evidence from a conditional Data Envelopment Analysis approach. Eur J Oper Res 223(1):214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang H, Zhou P, Zhou DQ (2013) Scenario-based energy efficiency and productivity in China: a non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Econ 40:795–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson PW (1993) Detecting outliers in deterministic nonparametric frontier models with multiple outputs. J Bus Econ Stat 11(3):319–323Google Scholar
  65. Zhang C, Liu H, Bressers H, Buchanan KS (2011) Productivity growth and environmental regulations-accounting for undesirable outputs: analysis of China’s thirty provincial regions using the Malmquist–Luenberger index. Ecol Econ 70(12):2369–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zofio JL, Prieto AM (2001) Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO2 emissions from OECD industries. Resour Energy Econ 23(1):63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations