Sustainable Development and Performance Measurement: Global Productivity Decomposition

Abstract

This paper analyzes productivity and efficiency by using inclusive wealth as a sustainability measurement. The study extends current measures of sustainability by capturing the efficient utilization of natural capital and other conventional inputs as input and carbon damage as undesirable output in a productivity measure for 140 countries from 1995 to 2010. To determine the contribution of each input/output to productivity and technical efficiency, we applied a weighted Russell directional distance and a Luenberger productivity measure. We found that GDP, natural capital and carbon damage are the main contributors to productivity change. Natural capital and carbon damage remain significant burdens for many countries' performance, especially for countries with resource-driven economies and extreme vulnerability to climatic shifts. This finding enhances our understanding of how particular countries can measure and manage their sustainability.

Gathering society's opinion of the sustainable management and economic value of the coastal zone

“…Nowadays, there is increasing interest in multiple public objectives under an ecosystem approach to marine resource management (Rice, 2011;Röckmann et al, 2012;Sugiawan, Islam, & Managi, 2017), and many studies are interested in sustainable development (Kurniawan & Managi, 2017;Noy, Managi, & Hallegatte, 2017;Rajapaksa, Islam, & Managi, 2017). Psychologists have developed practices for understanding the factors determining social behavior in relation to environmental preservation and conservation (Kaiser, Ranney, Hartig, & Bowler, 1999).…”

Shadow price of patent stock as knowledge stock: Time and country heterogeneity

“…Various articles have used this framework to estimate inclusive wealth of the 20 countries (Yamaguchi, 2014), Southeast Australia (Walker et al, 2010), West Virginia in the United States (Ghadimi et al, 2015), groundwater in Kansas in the United States (Fenichel et al, 2016), Japan at the prefectural levels (Ikeda et al, 2017), the Seto Inland Sea in Japan (Uehara and Mineo, 2017), and the oil-exporting countries (Collins et al, 2017). In addition, Kurniawan and Managi (2017) use the DEA model to estimate the entire productivity change, considering inclusive wealth (human, produced, and natural capitals), GDP, and carbon damage (using UNU-IHDP and UNEP (2014)). The present study notes that the framework in Arrow et al (2012Arrow et al ( , 2013 is popular but under debate; for example, Roman and Thiry (2016) raise certain limitations of the framework, in terms of its theoretical assumptions.…”

Sustainable development from millennium 2015 to Sustainable Development Goals 2030

“…Following the meeting, the MDGs came into the world agenda with the following explicit goals: end poverty and hunger, make universal education accessible to everyone, maintain gender equality, improve child and maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, work through environmental sustainability, and global partnership (Jayasuriya & Wodon, ). These goals indisputably are providing worldwide reference and therefore presenting an opportunity for international country progress assessments for decision making in critical matters including but not limited to the borrowers and international funding organizations to assess the country performances (Kurniawan & Managi, ). Table summarizes the MDGs in terms of number of targets and indicators they are related to (Haliscelik, ; McGillivray, ).…”

“…These goals indisputably are providing worldwide reference and therefore presenting an opportunity for international country progress assessments for decision making in critical matters including but not limited to the borrowers and international funding organizations to assess the country performances (Kurniawan & Managi, 2017). Table 1 summarizes the MDGs in terms of number of targets and indicators they are related to (Haliscelik, 2018;McGillivray, 2008).…”