4.7 Article

Empirical study on the technical efficiency and total factor productivity of power industry: Evidence from Chinese provinces

期刊

ENERGY ECONOMICS
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2023.107161

关键词

Energy technical efficiency; Total factor productivity; Chinese power industry; DEA model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By using DEA-BCC and DEA-Malmquist models, this study examines the regional disparities of technical efficiency and total factor productivity in the Chinese power industry. The results indicate a development pattern of emphasizing market over environment, but some progress has been made in green technology and environmental regulations. However, the lack of long-term incentives hinders the continuous development of the power market reform.
With government policy reviews of renewable energy, environmental regulation and climate change, the energybased power industry has received much attention. To explore the inherent characteristics of technical efficiency and total factor productivity in Chinese power industry, we use DEA-BCC and DEA-Malmquist models to exam the regional disparities of energy efficiency in 30 provinces based on the Yearbook database from 1998 to 2017. The market technical efficiency and environmental technical efficiency were compared from the power generation link, the power network link, and the comprehensive performance, respectively. Although the empirical results indicate that the Chinese power industry presents the development pattern of emphasizing market over environment, the green technology and renewable energy are the waves of future and the practices of environmental regulations have borne some fruit. In addition, the power market reform in the power industry works out but lacks long-term incentives for continuous progress. The research conclusions can reveal the complex strong correlation system in power industry and help to make targeted efficiency promotion strategies, which is in line with other energy policy goals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据