4.6 Article

Sources of China's Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis Based on the BML Index with Green Growth Accounting

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 6, Issue 9, Pages 5983-6004

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su6095983

Keywords

economic growth; biennial Malmquist-Luenberger index; data envelopment analysis; green growth accounting framework; counterfactual distribution

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71473105]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [12JNYH002]
  3. New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-110856]
  4. Guangdong Province Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Universities-IRESD [2012JDXM_0009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study develops a biennial Malmquist-Luenberger productivity index that is used to measure the sources of economic growth by utilizing data envelopment analysis and the directional distance function. Taking restrictions on resources and the environment into account based on the green growth accounting framework; we split economic growth into seven components: technical efficiency change, technological change, labor effect, capital effect, energy effect, output structure effect and environmental regulation effect. Further, we apply the Silverman test and Li-Fan-Ullah nonparametric test in combination with kernel distribution to test for the counterfactual contributions at the provincial level in China from 1998 to 2012. The empirical results show that: (1) technological progress and TFP make positive contributions to economic growth in China, while technical efficiency drags it down; (2) the effect of output structure and CO2 emissions with environmental regulation restrain economic growth in some provinces; and (3) overall, physical capital accumulation is the most important driving force for economic take-off, irrespective of whether the government adopts environmental regulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available