| Abstract: | 本研究利用資料包絡分析法，探討2005～2014年10個國家的效率優劣並加以分群，再利用差額變數分析找出兩群組國家效率下滑的主要原因，並使用敏感度分析，探討兩群組投入的優勢項目及影響幅度。最後為了使效率的評估具備時間過程考量，利用視窗分析來探討兩群組國家效率狀況與穩定程度。1. 開發中國家在2005至2014年間，能源使用量及二氧化碳排放量每年皆呈現成長趨勢；已開發國家的能源使用（除了2010年、2013年）及二樣化碳排放量（除了2007年、2010年、2013年）各年皆呈現逐漸下降的趨勢。其很大的原因在於已開發國家委託開發中國家代工、製造使得開發中國家對於能源消耗的需求不斷的增加，也就是說開發中國家為了衝擊經濟的成長而使環境污染影響越來越嚴重。2. 由資料包絡分析得知研究期間2005～2014年，已開發國家整體效率表現皆較開發中國家好，而在2009年，兩群國家效率皆有下降的趨勢，受到該年金融海嘯影響，各國的國內生產毛額皆明顯減少，但已開發國家效率在下降後有明顯回升，表示其對能源及碳排放控管能力較強，而開發中國家效率則在下降後無明顯上升，顯示其控管能力較差。3. 透過差額分析發現，開發中國家需要改善各項目的權重，依照其權重大小順序，需優先改善二氧化碳、能源使用、外資、內資。開發中國家投入過多的資本與能源的消耗但生產力卻不足，導致開發中國家相對無效率，因此開發中國家應提升生產效率或加速產業結構轉型。而已開發國家需要改善各項目的權重，依照其權重大小順序，需優先改善二氧化碳、能源使用、外資、內資。雖然乍看之下，已發中國家需改善的項目跟開發中國家需改善項目很相似，但是已開發國家的各個項目需改善的幅度很低，從3.3%到9.7%，沒有像開發中國家需改善幅度這麼大從35%到57%。可見得已開發國家在各項投入中的資源配置以及控管能力皆優於開發中國家。4. 從敏感度分析得知，依影響效率值優勢（權重）大小排序，影響開發中國家最大為內資，其次為能源使用，接著是二氧化碳，最後是外資。而影響已開發國家最大為內資，其次為外資，接著是二氧化碳，最後是能源使用量。兩群國家影響最大項目皆是內資，顯示其為兩群組國家之優勢項目，內資即國內資本與一國投入其生產資金與資產設備多寡息息相關，為一國之經濟基礎。開發中國家在去除能源使用項目與二氧化碳的排放量之後效率值大幅上升表示該兩項目為開發中國家的劣勢項目，而已開發國家在去除能源使用項目與二氧化碳排放量，影響效率值幅度很小，相比開發中國家來說，已開發國家的能源使用與二氧化碳排放量具有優勢，也就是說已開發國家的能源使用的效率與二氧化碳控管的效率比開發中國家來得好。開發中國家尤其中國、印度、印尼等，其二級產業比重遠高於一、三級產業。開發中國家主要以製造、代工等產業為主，其為屬於高污染，高耗能之產業類型對環境的重擊甚大。已開發國家在能源使用方面與二氧化碳排放量與開發中國家相比起來相對有優勢。5. 透過視窗分析發現，兩群國家整體效率值有所下降，依效率矩陣圖結果來看，大部份開發中國家（除了巴西）呈現低效率，而且大部分開發中國家（除了中國）皆呈現高度的不穩定。而已開發國家皆在高效率高穩定程度，顯示已開發國家相對於開發中國家有較佳的資源使用配置能力。
In this research, data envelopment analysis (DEA) was implemented to compare the efficiency of 10 subject countries from 2005 to 2014 and further categorize them into two clusters. Slack variable analysis was then used to figure out the main reason of their efficiency decline. Subsequently, sensitivity analysis was conducted to discuss the advantageous inputs and their impacts in both clusters. Finally, in order to take time interval into consideration, window analysis was performed to discuss countries’ efficiency condition and stability.The results are as follows:1. For developing countries from 2005 to 2014, energy usage and CO2 emission have been increasing every year. On the contrary, energy usage and CO2 emission of developed countries have been decreasing gradually year by year. The main reason is that most firms in developed countries outsource to developing countries, resulting in the increase of energy consumption and waste. In other words, developing countries have been making a tradeoff between economic growth and environmental pollution.2. The result of DEA indicates that developed countries have better efficiency than developing countries. However, in 2009, both clusters present a decline in their efficiency according to the financial tsunami. The decline also happened on their gross domestic production (GDP). After the decline, developed countries recovered sooner indicating their better control on energy and CO2 emission. On the contrary, developing countries had no sign of recovery, indicating poor performance on energy and CO2 emission control. 3. From the result of slack variable analysis, developing countries require improvements on several inputs according to their weights. The improvement order will be CO2 emission, energy usage, foreign investment, and domestic investment. Developing countries devote too much capital and energy but have less productivity. This results in their relatively low efficiency. Therefore they should improve production efficiency or speed up industrial structure transformation. As for developed countries, the improvement order is similar to developing countries, but the degree they have to improve is much less.4. From the result of sensitivity analysis, according to the weights of advantages affecting efficiency, domestic investment impact developing countries the most, the second is foreign investment, the third is CO2 emission, the last is energy consumption. Domestic investment is the most important strength input, which has great impact on the efficiency. Energy consumption and CO2 emission are the weakness input for developing countries. The efficiency of developing countries rises significantly after eliminating these two items. Comparing to developed countries, energy consumption and CO2 emission have less impact on efficiency than the developing countries. 5. The result of window analysis shows that the efficiencies of both clusters have been declining. From the result of efficiency matrix, most of the developing countries (except Brazil) present low efficiency, and most of them (except China) are highly instable. By contrast, all developed countries are highly efficient and stable, indicating that they have better ability on resource use and allocation. |
