||In pursuit of economic growth, we must cooperate with the maintenance of the environment to achieve the goal of sustainable development. In recent years, many Asian countries have experienced rapid economic growth, especially in developing countries. They have used their own advantages to encourage international companies around the world to go to invest and set up factories, and thus play an important role in supporting Asian economic growth. However, along with economic development, various types of environmental pollution, especially the excessive emission of carbon dioxide, have caused global warming. It has attracted the attention of the world in recent years. Therefore, this thesis will add environmental factor from the perspective of national productivity. After the factors, we will conduct a performance evaluation that explores the country′s overall performance. The purpose of this thesis is to compare the analysis of the environmental performance of 29 countries in Asia considering the undesirable output (CO2 emissions), and divide the 29 countries into five regions due to geographical location and then classify them by development level into Developed countries and developing countries discuss separately, and then analyze the cross-year productivity changes of countries and regions by Malmquist Productivity Index, and conduct comprehensive analysis by two indicators. The research period is from 2010 to 2016. It also explores the industrial and economic development strategies and adjustments of Asian countries and regional organizations. The empirical results show that in terms of production efficiency under carbon emissions, West Asia is the best, followed by East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central Asia. In terms of countries, the top five countries with average environmental efficiency performance from 2010 to 2016 were Israel, Singapore, Japan, Qatar and Kuwait; the bottom five were Bhutan, China, India ,Kyrgyzstan and Nepal. Based on the Malmquist Productivity Index, the average intertemporal efficiency Indexes for each region are ranked in Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia, while West Asia is in a recession. At the national level, Brunei has the largest progress, followed by Laos, Vietnam,Philippines and China; the larger recessions are Kuwait, Qatar, Cambodia, Japan and Bhutan. Finally, using two indicators for comprehensive analysis, Singapore, Israel, Qatar and Kuwait have changes between the first and fourth quadrants, representing that the overall economic development strategies of these countries are relatively effective in terms of direction and implementation; while other countries It is necessary to re-examine the country′s development strategy and improve its industrial structure to achieve efficiency.|
1. Arcelus, F. and P. Arocena (2005). "Productivity differences across OECD countries in the presence of environmental constraints." Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(12): 1352-1362.
2. Ayres, R. U., et al. (2007). "Energy efficiency, sustainability and economic growth." Energy 32(5): 634-648.
3. Barla, P. and S. Perelman (2005). "Sulphur emissions and productivity growth in industrialised countries." Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 76(2): 275-300.
4. Bampatsou, C. and G. Hadjiconstantinou (2009). "The use of the DEA method for simultaneous analysis of the interrelationships among economic growth, environmental pollution and energy consumption."
5. Banker, R. D., et al. (1984). "Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis." Management science 30(9): 1078-1092.
6. Caves, D. W., et al. (1982). "Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers." The economic journal 92(365): 73-86.
7. Chang, C.-C. and Y.-H. Luh (1999). "Efficiency change and growth in productivity: the Asian growth experience." Journal of asian Economics 10(4): 551-570.
8. Chang, D.-S., Kuo, L.-c. R., & Chen, Y.-t. (2013). Industrial changes in corporate sustainability performance–an empirical overview using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 147-155.
9. Chang, D.-S., Yeh, L.-T., & Liu, W. (2015). Incorporating the carbon footprint to measure industry context and energy consumption effect on environmental performance of business operations. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(2), 359-371.
10. Chalecki, E. (2000). Same Planet, Different Worlds: The Climate Change Information Gap. conference Climate Change Communication.
11. Charnes, A., et al. (1978). "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units." European journal of operational research 2(6): 429-444.
12. Cooper, W.W., Seiford. LM and Tone, K.(2007):Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Clark, C. (1940). The conditions of economic progress. London: Macmillan.
14. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and M.. Norris (1994), “Producyivity Growth, Technical progress and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries, ” American Economic Review, Vol. 84, 66-83
15. Färe, R., et al. (2004). "Environmental performance: an index number approach." Resource and Energy Economics 26(4): 343-352.
16. Farrell, M. J. (1957). “The Measurement of Productivity Efficiency." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A , vol.120,no.3,(1957), 253-290.
17. Fisher, A. G. (1939). "Production, primary, secondary and tertiary." Economic record 15(1): 24-38.
18. Gomes, E. and M. E. Lins (2008). "Modelling undesirable outputs with zero sum gains data envelopment analysis models." Journal of the Operational Research Society 59(5): 616-623.
19. Guo, X.-D., Zhu, L., Fan, Y., & Xie, B.-C. (2011). Evaluation of potential reductions in carbon emissions in Chinese provinces based on environmental DEA. Energy policy, 39(5), 2352-2360.
20. Hu, J.-L. and C.-H. Kao (2007). "Efficient energy-saving targets for APEC economies." Energy policy 35(1): 373-382.
21. Kortelainen, M. (2008). "Dynamic environmental performance analysis: a Malmquist index approach." Ecological economics 64(4): 701-715.
22. Kumar, S. (2006). "Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist–Luenberger index." Ecological economics 56(2): 280-293.
23. Lo, S.-F., et al. (2005). "Taking CO2 emissions into a country′s productivity change: the Asian growth experience." The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 12(3): 279-290.
24. Lovell, C. K., et al. (1995). "Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries." European journal of operational research 87(3): 507-518.
25. Meng, F., Fan, L., Zhou, P., & Zhou, D. (2013). Measuring environmental performance in China’s industrial sectors with non-radial DEA. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 58(5-6), 1047-1056.
26. Mol, A. P. (2003). "Global institutional clashes: economic versus environmental regimes." The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 10(4): 303-318.
27. Ray, S. C. and E. Desli (1997). "Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: comment." The American Economic Review 87(5): 1033-1039.
28. Simon, K. (1971). Economic Growth of Nations: Total Output and Production Structure, Cambridge (USA): Harvard University Press.
29. Smale, R., et al. (2006). "The impact of CO2 emissions trading on firm profits and market prices." Climate Policy 6(1): 31-48.
30. Tone, K. (2001). "A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis." European journal of operational research 130(3): 498-509.
31. Zaim, O. and F. Taskin (2000). "Environmental efficiency in carbon dioxide emissions in the OECD: a non-parametric approach." Journal of Environmental Management 58(2): 95-107..
32. Zhou, P., et al. (2006). "Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance." Ecological economics 60(1): 111-118.
33. Zhou, P., et al. (2007). "A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance." European journal of operational research 178(1): 1-9.
34. Zhou, P., Ang, B., & Han, J. (2010). Total factor carbon emission performance: a Malmquist index analysis. Energy Economics, 32(1), 194-201.
35. Zofı́o, J. L. and A. M. Prieto (2001). "Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO2 emissions from OECD industries." Resource and Energy Economics 23(1): 63-83.