综合福利视角下中国生态文明建设绩效评价及国际比较

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20190611

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于强可持续研究范式,以生态经济学和可持续发展理论为基础,运用两阶段网络Super-EBM模型进行绩效测算和评价,打开生态福利转化过程的“黑箱”,基于综合福利视角将生态文明建设绩效进一步分解为生态经济效率和经济福利效率,实证研究部分选取2006-2015年的时间序列数据对中国“十一五”和“十二五”期间的生态文明建设绩效水平进行纵向分析,与此同时,选取42个国家2014年的截面数据进行横向的国际对比研究。研究表明：（1）“十一五”到“十二五”期间,中国生态文明建设绩效（0.986）整体水平一般,均未实现DEA有效,但“十二五”期间已呈现出逐年改善的利好趋势。国际比较层面,瑞士（1.647）、印度尼西亚（1.365）、爱尔兰（1.039）依次排名前三位,中国（0.297）排名相对靠后,位列倒数第二。各国之间差异较大,总体上呈现出“OECD国家（0.677）最高、G20国家（0.611）次之、金砖国家（0.417）最低”的态势。（2）从分阶段效率来看,无论是纵向分析还是横向对比,均发现第一阶段的生态经济效率明显低于第二阶段的经济福利效率,生态经济效率偏低是导致生态文明建设绩效总体水平偏低的主要原因。（3）与传统的单阶段、径向或非径向DEA模型相比,两阶段网络Super-EBM模型综合考虑了径向和松弛变量问题,测算出来的效率值更为精确,能够更为客观地反映现实。同时,对于其他领域涉及两阶段或多阶段生产系统的效率或绩效评估具有较好的借鉴价值。最后,根据上述结论提出相应的政策建议。

关键词: 强可持续, 生态福利, 生态文明建设绩效, 网络Super-EBM模型, 国际比较

Abstract:

This study, based on a strong sustainability paradigm guided by ecological economics and sustainable development theory, aims at measuring the ecological civilization construction performance of China during 2006-2015 by means of two-stage network Super-EBM model from the perspective of overall well-being, and then an international comparison among 42 countries in 2014 is conducted accordingly. The employment of two-stage network DEA model is to open the "black box" during the ecological well-being transformation process. Thus, the ecological civilization construction performance is divided into two parts, namely ecological economy efficiency and economy well-being efficiency. The empirical results indicate that: (1) The overall efficiency of China during 2006-2015 is 0.986, which is at a relatively low level, and no single one of the ten DMUs performs efficiently in terms of the DEA efficiency value, while the overall efficiency is getting better during the 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-2015). At the global level, Switzerland (1.647), Indonesia (1.365) and Ireland (1.039) ranked top three in terms of overall efficiency among 42 countries in 2014, while China (0.297) ranked the last but one with a very low efficiency. In addition, there are great differences between countries, showing a trend characterized by "OECD countries (0.677) rank top, G20 countries (0.611) rank second and BRICS countries (0.417) the last". (2) According to the efficiency of each stage, the ecological economy efficiency in the first stage is apparently lower than the economy well-being efficiency in the second stage, and the relatively low ecological economy efficiency mainly contributes to the low performance of ecological civilization construction at the whole level. (3) The two-stage network Super-EBM model with the consideration of both radial and slacks issues can provide more accurate and near-factual result when compared to the traditional DEA models. Besides, the network Super-EBM model enjoys a good reference on efficiency or performance assessment in other similar fields that involve two or more stages. Finally, some specific suggestions are proposed in accordance with the aforementioned conclusions.

Key words: strong sustainability, ecological well-being, ecological civilization construction performance, network Super-EBM model, international comparison

龙亮军. 综合福利视角下中国生态文明建设绩效评价及国际比较[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(6): 1259-1272.

Liang-jun LONG. Evaluation of ecological civilization construction performance and its international comparison from the perspective of overall well-being[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2019, 34(6): 1259-1272.

图/表 6

图1

表1

表2

表3

图2

表4

参考文献 29

[1]	冒袁媛, 杨加猛. 长三角地区国家生态县生态文明建设绩效评价. 生态经济, 2018, 34(6): 210-216.
	[MAO Y Y, YANG J M.The performance appraisal of ecological civilization construction of national ecological county in Yangtze River Delta. Ecological Economy, 2018, 34(6): 210-216.]
[2]	胡鞍钢. 中国特色社会主义生态文明新时代. 林业经济, 2017, 39(12): 3-5.
	[HU A G.The new era of ecological civilization of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Forestry Economics, 2017, 39(12): 3-5.]
[3]	胡卫华, 康喜平. 构建科学的生态文明建设绩效评价考核制度. 中国党政干部论坛, 2017, (10): 48-50.
	[HU W H, KANG X P.To construct a scientific examination system of eco-civilization performance evaluation. Chinese Cadres Tribune, 2017, (10): 48-50.]
[4]	金振娅. 中国生态文明建设正快速推进. 光明日报, 2017-11-12.
	[JIN Z Y. The construction of ecological civilization in China being promoted rapidly. Guang Ming Daily, 2017-11-12.]
[5]	杨晶, 陈永森. 生态文明建设的中国方案及其世界意义. 东南学术, 2018, (5): 25-33.
	[YANG J, CHEN Y S.Ecological civilization construction's Chinese approach and its meaning to the world. Southeast Academic Research, 2018, (5): 25-33.]
[6]	诸大建. 生态经济学: 可持续发展的经济学和管理学. 中国科学院院刊, 2008, 23(6): 520-530.
	[ZHU D J.Ecological economics: Economics and management of sustainable development. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2008, 23(6): 520-530.]
[7]	董战峰, 张欣, 郝春旭. 2014年全球环境绩效指数(EPI)分析与思考. 环境保护, 2015, 43(2): 55-59.
	[DONG Z F, ZHANG X, HAO C X.Analysis and thoughts on 2014 environmental performance index. Environmental Protection, 2015, 43(2): 55-59.]
[8]	严耕, 林震, 吴明红. 中国省域生态文明建设的进展与评价. 中国行政管理, 2013, (10): 7-12.
	[YAN G, LIN Z, WU M H.The progress and evaluation of eco-civilization construction in Chinese provinces. Chinese Public Administration, 2013, (10): 7-12.]
[9]	张丹, 王腊芳. 中国区域节能减排绩效的差异性与收敛性分析. 系统工程, 2015, (4): 92-98.
	[ZHANG D, WANG L F.Energy saving performance differences and convergence of China. Systems Engineering, 2015, (4): 92-98.]
[10]	SCHALTEGGER S, STURM A.Öologische rationalität German/in English: Environmental rationality. Die Unternehmung, 1990, 4: 117-131.
[11]	张晓娣. 生态效率变动的产业及要素推动: 基于投入产出和系统优化模型. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(5): 748-760.
	[ZHANG X D.Eco-efficiency change driven by products and factors: Combining input-output and system optimization models. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(5): 748-760.]
[12]	MARK, N, SIMMS, A, THOMPSON, S, et al.The Happy Planlet Index: An Index of Human Well-being and Environmental Impact. London: New Economics Foundation, 2006.
[13]	诸大建, 孟维华, 徐萍. 1980-2005年中国经济增长对福利的贡献. 2008年度上海市社会科学界第六届学术年会文集, 2008.
	[ZHU D J, MENG W H, XU P.The contribution of economic growth to welfare in china from 1980 to 2005. The 6th Academic Annual Conference of Shanghai Social Sciences, 2008.]
[14]	诸大建, 张帅. 生态福利绩效及其与经济增长的关系研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014, 24(9): 59-67.
	[ZHU D J, ZHANG S.Research on ecological wellbeing performance and its relationship with economic growth. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014, 24(9): 59-67.]
[15]	龙亮军, 王霞. 上海市生态福利绩效评价研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2017, 27(2): 84-92.
	[LONG L J, WANG X.A study on Shanghai's ecological well-being performance. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2017, 27(2): 84-92.]
[16]	龙亮军, 王霞, 郭兵. 基于改进DEA模型的城市生态福利绩效评价研究: 以我国35个大中城市为例. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(4): 595-605.
	[LONG L J, WANG X, GUO B.Evaluation of urban ecological well-being performance based on revised DEA model: A case study of 35 major cities in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 2017, 32(4): 595-605.]
[17]	钟茂初. “生态可损耗配额”: 生态文明建设的核心机制. 学术月刊, 2014, (6): 60-67.
	[ZHONG M C."Eco-loss Quotas": A key mechanism of construction of ecological civilization. Academic Monthly, 2014, (6): 60-67.]
[18]	DALY H E.Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Developmen. Beacon: Beacon Press, 1997.
[19]	诸大建. 超越增长:可持续发展经济学如何不同于新古典经济学. 学术月刊, 2013, (10): 79-89.
	[ZHU D J.Beyond growth: What are differences between sustainable development economics and neoclassical economics. Academic Monthly, 2013, (10): 79-89.]
[20]	孙才志, 姜坤, 赵良仕. 中国水资源绿色效率测度及空间格局研究. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(12): 1999-2011.
	[SUN C Z, JIANG K, ZHANG L S.Measurement of green efficiency of water utilization and its spatial pattern in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 2017, 32(12): 1999-2011.]
[21]	TONE K, TSUTSUI M.An epsilon-based measure of efficiency in DEA: A third pole of technical efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 207(3): 1554-1563.
[22]	孙丝雨, 安增龙. 两阶段视角下国有工业企业绿色技术创新效率评价: 基于网络EBM模型的分析. 财会月刊, 2016, (35): 20-25.
	[SUN S Y, AN Z L.Evaluation of green technology innovation efficiency of state-owned industrial enterprises from a two-stage perspective based on network EBM model. Finance and Accounting Monthly, 2016, (35): 20-25.]
[23]	TAVANA M, MIRZAGOLTABAR H, MIRHEDAYATIAN S M, et al.A new network epsilon-based DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2013, 66(2): 501-513.
[24]	张浩, 杨慧敏. 基于考虑非期望产出的超效率网络SBM模型的我国商业银行效率. 系统工程, 2017, (4): 17-24.
	[ZHANG H, YANG H M.Efficiency evaluation of Chinese commercial banks based on the super-efficiency network SBM model with considering undesirable outputs. Systems Engineering, 2017, (4): 17-24.]
[25]	成金华, 孙琼, 郭明晶, 等. 中国生态效率的区域差异及动态演化研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014, 24(1): 47-54.
	[CHENG J H, SUN Q, GUO M J, et al.Research on regional disparity and dynamic evolution of eco-efficiency in China. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014, 24(1): 47-54.]
[26]	付丽娜, 陈晓红, 冷智花. 基于超效率DEA模型的城市群生态效率研究: 以长株潭“3+5”城市群为例. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2013, 23(4): 169-175.
	[FU L N, CHEN X H, LENG Z H.Urban agglomerations eco-efficiency analysis based on super-efficiency DEA Model: Case study of Chang-Zhu-Tan "3+5" urban agglomeration. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2013, 23(4): 169-175.]
[27]	何传启. 现代化强国建设的路径和模式分析. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(3): 274-283.
	[HE C Q.Route and model towards a great modernized country. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2018, 33(3): 274-283.]
[28]	CHANSARN S.The evaluation of the sustainable human development: A cross-country analysis employing slack-based DEA. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2014, 20: 3-11.
[29]	RHEINHARD S, LOVELL C A K, THIJSSEN G. Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables: Estimated with SFA and DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 2000, 121: 287-303.

阶段	类别	一级指标	二级指标	单位
第一阶段（生态经济效率）	投入指标	能源消耗	人均能源使用（X₁）	吨石油当量
		电力消费	人均电力消费（X₂）	兆瓦时（Mwh）
		碳排放	人均CO₂排放（X₃）	公吨（MT）
	产出指标	经济发展	人均GDP（Z₁）	PPP国际元$
第二阶段（经济福利效率）	投入指标	经济发展	人均GDP（Z₁）	PPP国际元$
	产出指标	客观福利	人类发展指数（Y₁）	—
	产出指标	主观福利	生活满意度（Y₂）	—

年份	两阶段网络Super-EBM模型			单阶段传统DEA模型		综合效率排名
年份	综合效率	阶段1	阶段2	SE-DEA	Super-SBM	综合效率排名
2006	1.113	1.126	0.988	1.141	1.096	1
2007	1.022	0.993	1.029	1.076	1.059	2
2008	0.997	0.971	1.026	1.048	1.026	3
2009	0.979	0.938	1.043	1.053	1.021	5
2010	0.964	0.964	1.000	0.968	0.955	7
2011	0.924	0.924	1.000	0.932	0.906	10
2012	0.943	0.943	1.000	0.953	0.924	9
2013	0.961	0.892	1.078	1.003	1.001	8
2014	0.987	0.987	0.999	0.991	0.981	4
2015	0.975	0.893	1.092	1.000	1.000	6
平均值	0.986	0.963	1.026	1.016	0.997	—

国家	分类	综合效率	阶段1	阶段2	排名	国家	分类	综合效率	阶段1	阶段2	排名
阿根廷	A	0.666	0.667	0.999	16	以色列	B	0.597	0.613	0.975	24
澳大利亚	A+B	0.547	0.547	0.999	28	意大利	A+B	0.780	0.824	0.947	10
奥地利	B	0.665	0.681	0.976	17	日本	A+B	0.558	0.579	0.964	27
比利时	B	0.638	0.640	0.998	22	韩国	A+B	0.351	0.363	0.965	38
巴西	B+C	0.677	0.681	0.993	15	卢森堡	B	0.802	0.812	0.988	9
加拿大	A+B	0.343	0.343	1.000	39	墨西哥	A+B	0.861	0.865	0.995	7
瑞士	B	1.647	1.611	1.022	1	荷兰	B	0.836	0.836	1.000	8
智利	B	0.622	0.645	0.963	23	挪威	B	0.965	0.956	1.010	5
中国	A+C	0.297	0.355	0.837	41	新西兰	B	0.482	0.482	1.000	34
捷克	B	0.538	0.538	1.000	29	波兰	B	0.647	0.649	0.996	20
德国	A+B	0.754	0.755	1.000	12	葡萄牙	B	0.644	0.722	0.893	21
丹麦	B	0.984	0.983	1.001	4	俄罗斯	A+C	0.368	0.368	0.998	37
西班牙	B	0.691	0.730	0.947	13	沙特阿拉伯	A	0.535	0.552	0.970	30
爱沙尼亚	B	0.437	0.441	0.992	36	斯洛伐克	B	0.579	0.637	0.909	25
芬兰	B	0.329	0.333	0.986	40	斯洛文尼亚	B	0.504	0.532	0.948	31
法国	A+B	0.657	0.690	0.952	18	瑞典	B	0.687	0.708	0.971	14
英国	A+B	0.870	0.882	0.986	6	土耳其	A+B	0.766	0.889	0.863	11
希腊	B	0.571	0.627	0.912	26	美国	A+B	0.476	0.476	1.000	35
匈牙利	B	0.652	0.730	0.893	19	南非	A+C	0.241	0.307	0.787	42
印尼	A	1.365	1.401	0.974	2	综合平均值		0.658	0.681	0.962	—
印度	A+C	0.500	0.636	0.786	32	OECD国家平均值		0.677	0.695	0.973	1
爱尔兰	B	1.039	1.015	1.024	3	G20国家平均值		0.611	0.641	0.948	2
冰岛	B	0.485	0.486	0.998	33	BRICS国家平均值		0.417	0.469	0.880	3

DMU	X₁		X₂		X₃		Y₁		Y₂
DMU	R⁺	S⁺	R⁺	S⁺	R⁺	S⁺	R⁺	S⁺	R⁺	S⁺
瑞士	0.302	0.000	0.743	-0.030	0.426	0.000	-0.021	0.000	-0.167	0.085
印尼	0.370	-0.673	0.340	0.000	0.763	-1.058	0.000	0.234	0.000	1.593
爱尔兰	0.014	0.000	0.029	0.000	0.038	-0.604	-0.024	0.000	-0.179	0.417
巴西	-0.290	-0.047	-0.507	0.000	-0.506	-0.141	0.000	0.120	0.000	0.000
印度	-0.406	0.000	-0.513	0.000	-1.102	-0.340	0.165	0.000	1.181	0.368
美国	-0.662	-0.081	-1.236	0.000	-1.569	-0.329	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
俄罗斯	-1.209	-0.021	-1.614	0.000	-2.899	-0.118	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.268
中国	-1.071	0.000	-1.881	0.000	-3.613	-0.519	0.141	0.000	1.006	0.348
南非	-1.432	0.000	-2.231	0.000	-4.771	-0.598	0.176	0.000	1.178	0.730