Abstract
This paper presents a methodology and empirical results based on theMalmquist productivity index. We measure productivity while treatingpollution as an undesirable output. Our estimates show that technicalchange has contributed to productivity and environmental performancegrowth in the container glass industry, an energy and pollution intensivesector. Changes in inter-plant efficiency over time have made thisproductivity growth more rapid than otherwise would have occurred withthe underlying technical change. The efficiency estimates show that thereare both opportunities to improve productivity and reduce pollution in thisindustry, as well as productivity losses associated with the emissionscontrol. The shadow prices for NOx, the undesirable output we analyze,is quite high compared to other regulated sectors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boyd, G. A. and J. D. McClelland (1999), ‘The Impact of Environmental Constraints on Productivity Improvement in Integrated Paper Plants', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38, 121–142.
Chambers, R., Y. H. Chung and R. Färe (1996), ‘Benefit and Distance Function', Journal of Economic Theory 70, 407–419.
Chung, Y. H., R. Färe and S. Grosskopf (1997), ‘Productivity and Undesirable Outputs: A Directional Distance Function Approach', Journal of Environmental Management 51, 229–240.
Färe, R. and S. Grosskopf (2000), ‘Theory and Application of Directional Distance Functions', Journal of Productivity Analysis 13(2), 93–103.
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf and K. Lovell (1985), The Measurement of Efficiency of Production. Studies in Productivity Analysis, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Färe, R. et al. (1994), ‘Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industralized Countries', American Economic Review 84(1), 66–83.
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf and M. Norris (1997), ‘Productivity Growth, Techical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industralized Countries: Reply', American Economic Review 87(5), 1039–1041.
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, K. Lovell and C. Pasurka (1989), ‘Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs are Undesirable: A nonparametric Approach', Review of Economics and Statistics 71, 90–98.
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, K. Lovell and S. Yaisawarng (1993), ‘Derivation of Shadow Prices for Undesirable Outputs: A Distance Function Approach', Review of Economics and Statistics 75, 374–380.
Färe, R. and D. Primont (1995), Multi-output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gray, W. B. and R. J. Shadbegian (1993), Environmental Regulation and Manufacturing Productivity at the Plant Level. Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Morgenstern, R. D. and W. A. Pizer et al. (1997), ‘Are we Overstating the Economic Costs of Environmental Protection?'. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future.
Plamer, K. and W. Oates et al. (1995), ‘Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm', Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4), 97–118.
Porter, M. E. and C. Linde (1995), ‘Green and Competive', Harvard Business Review (Sept.-Oct.), 120–134.
Ray, S. and E. Desli (1997), ‘Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industralized Countries: Comment', American Economic Review 87, 33–39.
Yaisawarng, S. and J. D. Klein (1994), ‘The Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Controls on Productivity Change in the U.S. Electric Power Industry’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47–60.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boyd, G.A., Tolley, G. & Pang, J. Plant Level Productivity, Efficiency, and Environmental Performance of the Container Glass Industry. Environmental and Resource Economics 23, 29–43 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020236517937
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020236517937