To evaluate the sustainability of Asian countries, output variables represent the economic and environmental performance measures and input variables are related to the energy consumption. First, gross domestic product (GDP) is selected to demonstrate the total economic performance and CO2 is selected to present the environmental performance measure at each country level. The consumption of both primary and secondary energies is considered in this study. The primary energy includes traditional energy sources such as crude oil, coal, natural gas, some mineral fuels and renewable energy such as solar, wind, water, biomass, geothermal energy and so on. The secondary energy is an amount of generated electricity. Therefore, the total amount of primary energy and electricity is selected as input variables. Considering differences in population, area, and development status in Asia, this study needs to include the performance to represent the people’s living standard in our country comparison. Therefore, the GDP per capita is selected as one of desirable outputs. The amount of CO2 divided by total primary energy is used as an undesirable output.
Thus, this study utilizes the two desirable outputs: GDP and GDP per capita as well as the two undesirable outputs: total CO2 emission and CO2/total primary energy. The two inputs include electricity consumption and total primary energy consumption. All the production factors are fully used in the proposed DEA application.
We obtain the dataset regarding CO
2 emission, total primary energy consumption and electricity consumption from US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA provides a dataset on energy and environment of the whole world in each year from 1980 to 2014. The data on GDP are obtained from Trading Economics (
http://www.tradingeconomics.com), and the data on population are obtained from worldometers (
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population). The GDP per capita is calculated as an amount of GDP divided by the number of population. This study applies the most recent data in 7 years from 2008 to 2014. Using the dataset, this study examines the 21 countries of Asia after excluding all countries with small CO
2 emission and small usage of energy. For example, such excluded nations are Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Macau, Maldives, Nepal and Timor-Leste. Table
1 summarizes descriptive statistics on the dataset.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics
2008 |
Ave. | 696.90 | 13.45 | 566.38 | 61.78 | 281.82 | 7.94 |
S.D. | 1344.82 | 16.59 | 1483.25 | 11.87 | 665.79 | 18.80 |
Min. | 5.62 | 0.37 | 1.64 | 26.80 | 1.43 | 0.06 |
Max. | 4849.18 | 50.20 | 6985.87 | 79.53 | 3071.04 | 87.84 |
2009 |
Ave. | 722.41 | 12.35 | 600.62 | 64.06 | 294.88 | 8.32 |
S.D. | 1443.37 | 15.11 | 1607.74 | 10.60 | 709.27 | 20.13 |
Min. | 4.58 | 0.44 | 6.45 | 45.37 | 2.03 | 0.09 |
Max. | 5059.42 | 43.58 | 7573.85 | 84.44 | 3290.29 | 94.29 |
2010 |
Ave. | 847.62 | 14.41 | 641.83 | 64.05 | 326.71 | 8.95 |
S.D. | 1654.38 | 17.53 | 1721.63 | 10.42 | 799.56 | 21.92 |
Min. | 7.19 | 0.55 | 8.10 | 43.55 | 2.44 | 0.10 |
Max. | 6039.66 | 53.09 | 8110.66 | 84.54 | 3713.32 | 102.77 |
2011 | | | | | | |
Ave. | 974.68 | 16.56 | 689.09 | 63.88 | 353.26 | 9.46 |
S.D. | 1932.48 | 20.29 | 1897.54 | 9.81 | 895.10 | 23.90 |
Min. | 10.41 | 0.60 | 8.41 | 43.14 | 3.03 | 0.10 |
Max. | 7492.43 | 63.86 | 8951.16 | 80.16 | 4178.91 | 112.37 |
2012 |
Ave. | 1036.90 | 17.15 | 714.31 | 63.42 | 366.39 | 9.83 |
S.D. | 2096.58 | 20.95 | 1958.82 | 8.87 | 945.38 | 25.12 |
Min. | 12.29 | 0.64 | 8.60 | 45.55 | 3.45 | 0.14 |
Max. | 8461.62 | 67.67 | 9222.34 | 78.01 | 4434.91 | 118.22 |
2013 |
Ave. | 1048.42 | 17.32 | 695.58 | 63.77 | 390.48 | 9.62 |
S.D. | 2199.35 | 20.97 | 1936.42 | 8.65 | 1030.68 | 25.08 |
Min. | 6.01 | 0.04 | 7.92 | 42.97 | 3.73 | 0.14 |
Max. | 9607.22 | 67.61 | 9151.47 | 77.23 | 4845.68 | 118.50 |
2014 |
Ave. | 1085.52 | 17.14 | 695.76 | 64.06 | 405.14 | 9.74 |
S.D. | 2341.33 | 20.26 | 1909.30 | 8.73 | 1076.74 | 25.24 |
Min. | 6.06 | 0.04 | 9.09 | 41.99 | 3.95 | 0.16 |
Max. | 10,482.37 | 61.61 | 9017.78 | 75.79 | 5066.78 | 119.26 |
Total |
Ave. | 916.06 | 15.48 | 657.65 | 63.57 | 345.53 | 9.12 |
S.D. | 1861.26 | 18.67 | 1761.30 | 9.75 | 870.11 | 22.57 |
Min. | 4.58 | 0.04 | 1.64 | 26.80 | 1.43 | 0.06 |
Max. | 10,482.37 | 67.67 | 9222.34 | 84.54 | 5066.78 | 119.26 |
5.1 Natural disposability and constant RTS
Table
2 summarizes the degree of
\({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) regarding Asian nations from 2008 to 2014.
Table 2
Unified efficiency under natural disposability and constant RTS
1st Tier |
Japan | 0.8941 | 0.9448 | 0.9880 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.8675 | 0.8269 | 0.9316 |
Brunei | 0.8898 | 0.7264 | 0.7851 | 1.0000 | 0.9665 | 1.0000 | 0.9119 | 0.8971 |
New Zealand | 0.7351 | 0.6928 | 0.8261 | 0.9086 | 0.9035 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.8666 |
2nd Tier |
Australia | 0.7368 | 0.6295 | 0.7727 | 0.9039 | 0.9637 | 1.0000 | 0.9493 | 0.8509 |
Singapore | 0.6850 | 0.5960 | 0.7467 | 0.8145 | 0.8336 | 1.0000 | 0.9321 | 0.8011 |
Hong Kong | 0.6581 | 0.6211 | 0.6430 | 0.7187 | 0.7723 | 0.8560 | 1.0000 | 0.7528 |
3rd Tier |
Sri Lanka | 0.4239 | 0.4159 | 0.5152 | 0.6232 | 0.6569 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.6622 |
China | 0.4857 | 0.4995 | 0.5400 | 0.5911 | 0.6341 | 0.6902 | 1.0000 | 0.6343 |
Burma (Myanmar) | 0.3922 | 0.5213 | 0.6465 | 0.4988 | 0.5038 | 0.4566 | 0.7586 | 0.5397 |
4th Tier |
Korea, South | 0.3943 | 0.3528 | 0.4005 | 0.4071 | 0.4083 | 0.4486 | 0.4982 | 0.4157 |
India | 0.3216 | 0.3354 | 0.4000 | 0.4158 | 0.3985 | 0.4199 | 0.4438 | 0.3907 |
Indonesia | 0.3073 | 0.3102 | 0.3589 | 0.3777 | 0.3720 | 0.3680 | 0.3574 | 0.3502 |
Philippines | 0.2881 | 0.2745 | 0.3194 | 0.3483 | 0.3798 | 0.3947 | 0.3972 | 0.3431 |
Taiwan | 0.2878 | 0.2987 | 0.3132 | 0.3207 | 0.3312 | 0.3419 | 0.3484 | 0.3203 |
5th Tier |
Pakistan | 0.1834 | 0.1738 | 0.1838 | 0.2454 | 0.2407 | 0.2480 | 0.2638 | 0.2199 |
Malaysia | 0.2028 | 0.1747 | 0.2021 | 0.2379 | 0.2428 | 0.2360 | 0.2370 | 0.2190 |
Bangladesh | 0.2344 | 0.2429 | 0.2700 | 0.2835 | 0.2713 | 0.0117 | 0.0118 | 0.1894 |
Thailand | 0.1544 | 0.1429 | 0.1638 | 0.1788 | 0.1890 | 0.1854 | 0.1784 | 0.1704 |
Mongolia | 0.0906 | 0.0702 | 0.1033 | 0.1571 | 0.1943 | 0.1376 | 0.1169 | 0.1243 |
Vietnam | 0.1055 | 0.1096 | 0.0961 | 0.1156 | 0.1280 | 0.1501 | 0.1555 | 0.1229 |
Korea, North | 0.0226 | 0.0208 | 0.0252 | 0.0388 | 0.0385 | 0.0456 | 0.0416 | 0.0333 |
The 1st tier includes Japan, Brunei and New Zealand that have outperformed the other countries with \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) over 0.8666 on average. Japan keeps the top rank in the performance measure. All of the \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) were above 0.8269 and the average was 0.9316. Japan is a developed country with a high standard of living and leads the Asian economy for a long time in history. It is still on the leading position. Brunei experienced a huge economic growth during 1990s and 2000s since its independence from the UK, with GDP increasing 56% from 1999 to 2008, transformed Brunei into an industrialized country. It has developed wealth from extensive petroleum and natural gas fields. In 2011, Brunei was one of the two countries with a public debt at 0% of the national GDP. Thus, Brunei maintains a high standard of living and economic performance with the level of \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.8971 on average in the 7 years. The \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) decreased from 0.8898 in 2008 to 0.7264 in 2009, which was seriously influenced by the global financial crisis. Then, the degree of \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) grew back to 0.7851 in 2010. Brunei recovered in 2011 with the \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) of 1, fluctuated a little to 0.9665 in 2012 and kept the level at 1 in 2013. The \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) decreased to 0.9119 in 2014. New Zealand has a high-income economy and extractive industries have contributed strongly to its economy, historically focusing on sealing, whaling, flax, gold, kauri gum and native timber. The average \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) was 0.8666. It decreased from 0.7351 to 0.6928 in 2009 due to the financial crisis in 2008. However, it gradually grew to 1 in 2013 and maintained the high level in 2014. Thus New Zealand showed the strong position in its economic recovery and growth.
The 2nd tier includes Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong that are ranked in the second top tier in their unified efficiency measures. The averages of \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) were between 0.7528 and 0.8509. Australia is a wealthy country that generates the income from various sources such as mining-related exports, telecommunications, banking and manufacturing. The economy was drastically pulled down by the financial crisis in 2008, with the \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) decreasing from 0.7368 to 0.6295. However, Australia recovered very quickly with 6–15% growth of \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) every year and reached 1 in 2013. The Australia’s economy slightly decreased with the \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) back to 0.9493 in 2014. Thus, Australia’s economy fluctuates within a steadily increase, indicating the economic potential of Australia. Singapore is a global commerce, finance and transport hub. Based on extended trade, Singapore has a highly developed market economy. Along with Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan, Singapore is one of the original Four Asian Tigers. It has surpassed the others in terms of economic performance with \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) 0.8011 on average in the 7 years. The \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) dropped from 0.6850 in 2008 to 0.5960 in 2009 due to the financial crisis in 2008. Then, it jumped to 0.7467 in 2010 and continued to grow to 1 in 2013. The \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) slightly dropped to 0.9321 in 2014. Hong Kong is one of the world’s most significant financial centers with the highest financial development index score and consistently ranks as the world’s most competitive and freest economic entity. The \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) was 0.7528 on average in the 7 years. The \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) kept at the level around 0.6407 on average from 2008 to 2010 and fast grew to 1 in 2014. Hong Kong was significantly attacked by finance crisis of 2008 because its economy relies on the finance.
The 3rd tier includes Sri Lanka, China and Burma (Myanmar) that are classified to the third tier with \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) between 0.5397 and 0.6622 on average in 7 years. Sri Lanka is impressive because the \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) drastically increased from 0.4239 to 1, which made average \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.6622. In particular, in 2012–2013, the \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) jumped from 0.6569 to 1. Sri Lanka has long maritime borders and beautiful view. The country’s main economic sectors are tourism, tea export, clothing, and agriculture products. When we check the original data, the GDP increased from $40 to $ 80 billion in the observed 7 years and the GDP per capita increased from $12 to $17.4 thousand. Thus, Sri Lanka’s economy is transitioning to the efficiency-driven stage in the recent years. China is the world’s second largest economy by GDP and largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). Even though China has become one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies in the current years and has crucial global influence power on economy, the large population drags down the average living standard of Chinese people. Because a desirable output of this study included GDP per capita, the China’s economy was classified into the third tier with \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) 0.6343 on average. It reflects the relatively poor living standard of people, comparing to its good economy at the country level. Unlike the countries with better performance, China’s economy was so strong and was not impacted by the financial crisis of 2008. The \({\text{UEN}}_{c}^{I}\) fast grew from 0.4857 in 2008 to 1 in 2014. Burma (Myanmar) is a country rich in jade and gems, oil, natural gas and other mineral resources. However, the income gap is the widest in the world, as a large proportion of the economy is controlled by supporters of the former military government. Moreover, political and economic ideological struggles have affected living standards. Therefore, the economy is classified into the third tier according to the average living standard. The \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) increased from 0.3922 to 0.6465 from 2008 to 2010. The government of Burma was undergoing a critical transition during the annual periods. The \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) decreased to 0.4988 in 2011 and kept at this level 0.5038 in 2012. The nation continued to drop to 0.4566 in 2013 and 0.7586 in 2014. In 2011, Myanmar started economic liberalization and formed a draft foreign investment law in 2012.
The 4th tier includes South Korea, India, Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan that hold the degree of \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) at the level between 0.3203 and 0.4157 on average in the observed 7 years.
South Korea’s economy soared at an annual average of 10% for over 30 years. The degree of \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) was 0.4157 on average. South Korea had the \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) 0.3943 in 2008. Though the \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) decreased to 0.3528 in 2009 due to the financial crisis, it increased back to 0.4005 and continued to increase slowly to 0.4982 in 2014. India became one of the fastest-growing major economies, and it is now considered a newly industrialized country. The service sectors, including information technology and software services, had an annual growth rate of above 9% since 2001. India ranks second worldwide in farm output. However, India is the second-most populous country, which pushed the people’s living standard low on average with the average \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.3907. The \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) has gradually increased from 0.3216 in 2008 to 0.4438 in 2014. Indonesia has the largest economy by GDP in Southeast Asia and considered as emerging markets and newly industrialized country with \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.3502 on average. The \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) increased from 0.3073 in 2008 to 0.3777 in 2011 and gradually decreased back to 0.3574 in 2014. Even though the economy grew from 0.3073 to 0.3574 from 2008 to 2014 in general, the decreasing trend was observed after 2011. Philippines is a sovereign island country in the western Pacific Ocean with average \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.3431. The \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) slowly increased from 0.2881 in 2008 to 0.3972 in 2014.
Taiwan entered a period of rapid economic growth and industrialization since 1960. The high-tech industry plays a key role in the global economy. However, the growth pace was down in recent years with \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.3203 on average. Therefore, Taiwan’s economy grew steadily and slowly in recent years with \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) that increased from 0.2878 in 2008 to 0.3484 in 2014.
The 5th tier includes all the remaining countries consist of the last tier, having the \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) below 0.2199 on average and grew slowly in terms of economy. Among them, Pakistan and Malaysia performed relatively better with average \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.2199 and 0.2190, respectively. North Korea was really poor with average \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.0333 even if the \(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) had been doubled in the 7 years.
The implication, obtained from Table
2, implies that most of the countries grew slowly in terms of the unified efficiency under natural disposability and constant RTS. There are two groups of exception. First, China, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Hong Kong kept rapid growth since 2008 and the
\(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) reached 1 in 2014. Second, some countries, including Japan, Australia, Singapore and Brunei, faced an economic meltdown after the growth. Among them, Japan’s economy started to turn down after 2012 and faced the pitfall in recent years. The
\(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) decreased from 1 in 2012 to 0.8675 in 2013 and continued to decreased to 0.8269 in 2014, both of which were the smallest during the 7 years. The disaster of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants occurred on March 11, 2011, seriously devastated Japan’s economy. The impact was revealed from 2012. The other three economies, Brunei, Australia and Singapore, slightly dropped from 2013 to 2014 with the
\(\text{UEN}_{c}^{I}\) decreasing from 1 in 2013 to 0.9119, 0.9493 and 0.9321, respectively, in 2014.
5.2 Managerial disposability and constant DTS
Table
3 summarizes the
\(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) on 21 Asian countries from 2008 to 2014.
Table 3
Unified efficiency under managerial disposability and constant DTS
1st Tier |
Japan | 0.9081 | 0.9589 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.9691 | 0.8724 | 0.8322 | 0.9344 |
New Zealand | 0.7008 | 0.6681 | 0.8393 | 1.0000 | 0.8954 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.8719 |
2nd Tier |
Brunei | 0.6994 | 0.6341 | 0.6502 | 0.8689 | 0.8816 | 1.0000 | 0.8289 | 0.7947 |
Australia | 0.6409 | 0.5500 | 0.6979 | 0.8523 | 0.9144 | 0.9572 | 0.9127 | 0.7893 |
China | 0.4865 | 0.5092 | 0.5698 | 0.6306 | 0.7461 | 0.8706 | 1.0000 | 0.6875 |
3rd Tier |
Singapore | 0.5676 | 0.4161 | 0.5736 | 0.6056 | 0.6181 | 0.6257 | 0.6303 | 0.5767 |
Hong Kong | 0.4887 | 0.4378 | 0.4337 | 0.4821 | 0.5483 | 0.6257 | 0.6556 | 0.5245 |
Korea, South | 0.4977 | 0.4967 | 0.5145 | 0.4821 | 0.4844 | 0.4815 | 0.5076 | 0.4949 |
Burma (Myanmar) | 0.2383 | 0.4080 | 0.4824 | 0.5904 | 0.5988 | 0.5205 | 0.5259 | 0.4806 |
Sri Lanka | 0.3903 | 0.3686 | 0.4774 | 0.4983 | 0.5031 | 0.5151 | 0.5043 | 0.4653 |
Taiwan | 0.3773 | 0.4065 | 0.4036 | 0.3831 | 0.3854 | 0.3918 | 0.3953 | 0.3919 |
India | 0.3312 | 0.3345 | 0.3735 | 0.3968 | 0.3806 | 0.4041 | 0.4337 | 0.3792 |
4th Tier |
Indonesia | 0.2490 | 0.2506 | 0.3288 | 0.3690 | 0.3591 | 0.3485 | 0.3237 | 0.3184 |
Philippines | 0.2525 | 0.2504 | 0.2908 | 0.3145 | 0.3527 | 0.3704 | 0.3722 | 0.3148 |
Malaysia | 0.2945 | 0.2931 | 0.2935 | 0.3054 | 0.3036 | 0.2936 | 0.2999 | 0.2977 |
Thailand | 0.2855 | 0.2847 | 0.2836 | 0.2962 | 0.3121 | 0.2961 | 0.2989 | 0.2939 |
Pakistan | 0.2766 | 0.2760 | 0.2812 | 0.2735 | 0.2743 | 0.2756 | 0.2719 | 0.2756 |
Vietnam | 0.2319 | 0.2530 | 0.2256 | 0.2527 | 0.2639 | 0.2713 | 0.3973 | 0.2708 |
Bangladesh | 0.2430 | 0.2415 | 0.2561 | 0.2725 | 0.2581 | 0.2525 | 0.2567 | 0.2544 |
Korea, North | 0.1831 | 0.1789 | 0.1815 | 0.1899 | 0.1887 | 0.1939 | 0.1857 | 0.1860 |
Mongolia | 0.1515 | 0.1433 | 0.1375 | 0.1553 | 0.1909 | 0.1848 | 0.1897 | 0.1647 |
The 1st tier includes Japan and New Zealand that have the \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) over 0.8719 on average in 7 years. Japan had the average \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.9344 and maintained a high level of unified efficiency. The \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) increased from 0.9081 in 2008 to 1 in 2010 and maintained the perfect performance at 1 in 2011. However, the \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) started a decreasing trend to 0.9691 in 2012 and reached to 0.8724, 0.8322 in 2013 and 2014, gradually. As mentioned previously, such a decreasing trend was because of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster that drastically damaged the Japanese energy usage and environment conditions. New Zealand had the \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) at 0.8719 on average in the 7 years. The \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) fast increased from 0.7008 in 2008 to 1 in 2014 except a drop to 0.8954 in 2012. Thus, New Zealand has spending a considerable policy effort for environmental improvement.
The 2nd tier includes Brunei, Australia and China that consist of the second tier in \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) between 0.6875 and 0.7947 on average in the 7 years. Brunei’s performance on environment fluctuated slightly in recent years, but \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) did not change seriously and kept at the level above 0.6502 from 2008 to 2010 and 0.8289 to 0.8816 in recent 4 years except 1 in 2013. The \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) of Australia decreased from 0.6409 in 2008 to 0.5500 in 2009 and jumped back to 0.6979 in 2010. It continued to increase to 0.9572 in 2013 and dropped back to 0.9127 in 2014. Similar as the economy, Australia’s performance slightly fluctuated, but still kept at a high level. China fast grew with \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) from 0.4865 in 2008 to 1 in 2014, and the average \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) was 0.6875. This indicates the Chinese effort for developing, implementing and enforcing a solid environment law framework.
The 3rd tier includes Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Burma (Myanmar), Sri Lanka, Taiwan and India that are classified to this tier, with the \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) between 0.3792 and 0.5767 on average in the 7 years. Singapore had the level of \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\), gradually increasing from 0.5676 in 2008 to 0.6303 in 2014 except the drop by 15% in 2009. It outperformed the other three “Tiger economies” (i.e., Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan) in environmental perspective. Most of nations in this tier were impacted by the financial crisis of 2008 in terms of their environmental performance measures, except Burma having 17% increase in 2009. Taiwan and India had small increases. Burma (Myanmar) fast increased the \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) from 0.2383 in 2008 to 0.5988 in 2012 and dropped to 0.5205 in 2013 and 0.5259 in 2014. Taiwan basically maintained the degree of \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) at the level around 0.3773 to 0.3953. The increase was very small, indicating that Taiwan’s development stagnated in recent years. India gradually increased \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) from 0.3312 in 2008 to 0.4337 in 2014 except 1% drop in 2012. India paid much attention on its economic prosperity, not developing a balanced development between economy and environment protection.
The 4th tier includes all rest countries that had \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) below 0.3184 on average in the observed 7 year. North Korea and Mongolia still performed the worst in environmental protection with the average \(\text{UEM}_{c}^{I}\) below 0.2.
The implication, obtained from Table
3, implies that Japan and New Zealand leaded all Asian nations in both economic and environmental performance measures because they were in first tier under both natural disposability and managerial disposability. Brunei and Australia developed in balance with economic growth and environment protection by controlling CO
2 emission and maintained their performance measures at a high level. China fast grew in past decades and tried to catch up with developed countries. It showed a huge potential to lead the Asia in future. All “Tiger” economies, including Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, declined in both economy and environment. All countries in the fifth tier in economic performance belonged to the last tier in environmental performance, as well. Thus, the underdeveloped countries have a long way to develop the balanced economy and environment, especially North Korea and Mongolia.
At the end of this section, we need to note that the degree of
\(\text{UEN}_{v}^{I}\) and that of
\(\text{UEM}_{v}^{I}\) on 21 Asian countries from 2008 to 2014 have similar results as documented in Tables
2 and
3. Therefore, similar policy implication discussed from Tables
2 and
3 may be obtained from the ones in the cases. For example, the huge population may be the rationale concerning decreased
\(\text{UEM}_{v}^{I}\) in China and India. This indicates that they need challenging policy to reduce industrial pollutions in developing their economies. Hence, this study does not document their results to reduce the length of this manuscript.