传统方法测度的环境技术效率低估了环境治理效率?——来自基于网络DEA的方向性环境距离函数方法分析中国工业省级面板数据的证据

Does Environment Technology Efficiency Measured by Traditional Method Underestimate Environment Governance Efficiency? From the Evidence of China's Industrial Provincial Panel Data Using Environmental Directional Distance Function Based on the Network DEA

环境治理效率是环境治理的投入与污染物减少量的比值大小。本文将工业生产过程分为生产、环境治理两个环节,基于网络DEA的方向性环境距离函数方法,使用中国1998-2010年的省级工业数据,考察工业环境治理效率。结果发现:(1)传统DEA方法测度的环境技术效率(ETE),与网络DEA方法测度的ETE存在显著差异。(2)以网络DEA方法测度的ETE为被解释变量,以环境治理效率为解释变量,以传统DEA方法测度的ETE为控制变量,建立双边面板Tobit模型,发现环境治理效率对网络DEA方法测度的ETE有显著的正效应,这说明传统方法测度的环境技术效率低估了环境治理效率。(3)传统方法测度的环境技术效率低估了环境治理效率,造成了严重的偏差,江西、甘肃、云南、重庆和广西等环境治理效率较高的地区,就因此被错误地划分到了环境工业不协调发展地区,这对于政策的制定极为不利。

Environment governance efficiency is the ratio of environmental governance inputs and pollutants＇ reduction. This paper divides industrial processes into two aspeets of production, environment governance, then constructs to the environmental directional distanee function based on the network DEA model,and investigates industrial environment governance efficiency using provincial panel data from 1998 to 2010 in China. The results show： （1） There are significant differenees between environment technology efficiency （ETE） measured by the traditional DEA model and the ETE measured by the network DEA model. （2） With the ETE measured by the network DEA model as explanatory variable,environment governance efficiency as explanatory variable,and the ETE measured by the traditional DEA model as eontrol variable, this paper solves the two - sided panel Tobit model and finds that environment governance efficiency has a significant positive effect on the ETE measured by the network DEA model. It shows that environment teehnology efficiency measured by traditional method underestimates environment governance efficiency. （3） It has caused a serious deviation and is extremely unfavorable for policy formulation that environment technology efficiency measured by traditional method underestimates the environment governance efficiency. Because of that, Jiangxi, Gansu, Yunnan, Chongqing and Guangxi, where have high environment governance efficiency have been misclassified as the environment and industry uncoordinated development areas.