An Innovation Perspective to Explore the Ecology and Social Welfare Efficiencies of Countries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Research Design
3.1. Two-Stage Production Process of Countries
3.2. Research Method
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Ecology Efficiency and Social Welfare Efficiency for Countries
4.2. Analysis of Benchmarking of Production Factors
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Turnhout, E.; Metze, T.A.P.; Wyborn, C.; Klenk, N.; Louder, E. The politics of co-production: Participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Wageningen 2020, 42, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
- Dewulf, A.; Klenk, N.; Wyborn, C.; Lemos, M.C. Usable environmental knowledge from the perspective of decision-making: The logics of consequentiality, appropriateness, and meaningfulness. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 42, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, W.; Xu, L.; Tang, L.; Xiang, X. Eco-efficiency of the Western Taiwan Straits Economic Zone: An evaluation based on a novel eco-efficiency model and empirical analysis of influencing factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 638–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.; Yearworth, M. Climate change and cities: Problem structuring methods and critical perspectives on low-carbon districts. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 25, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, T.M.; Donaldson, T.; Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Leana, C.; Mahoney, J.T.; Pearce, J.L. Management Theory and Social Welfare: Contributions and Challenges. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Zhang, X. Assessing regional eco-efficiency from the perspective of resource, environmental and economic performance in China: A bootstrapping approach in global data envelopment analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wursthorn, S.; Poganietz, W.-R.; Schebek, L. Economic–environmental monitoring indicators for European countries: A disaggregated sector-based approach for monitoring eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moutinho, V.; Fuinhas, J.A.; Marques, A.C.; Santiago, R. Assessing eco-efficiency through the DEA analysis and decoupling index in the Latin America countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 512–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mavi, R.K.; Saen, R.F.; Goh, M. Joint analysis of eco-efficiency and eco-innovation with common weights in two-stage network DEA: A big data approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moraes, R.K.; Wanke, P.F.; Faria, J.R. Unveiling the endogeneity between social-welfare and labor efficiency: Two-stage NDEA neural network approach. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2021, 77, 101026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefebvre, M.; Perelman, S.; Pestieau, P. Productivity and Performance in the Public Sector; LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2015052; Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE): Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, R.; Feng, Y. Research on China’s Ecological Welfare Performance Evaluation and Improvement Path from the Perspective of High-Quality Development. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 2020, 5476089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picazo-Tadeo, A.J.; Beltrán-Esteve, M.; Gómez-Limón, J.A. Assessing eco-efficiency with directional distance functions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 220, 798–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, C.-Y.; Lin, B. An integration of balanced scorecards and data envelopment analysis for firm’s benchmarking management. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2009, 20, 1153–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sporchia, F.; Paneni, A.; Pulselli, F.M.; Caro, D. Investigating environment-society-economy relations in time series in Europe using a synthetic input-state-output framework. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 125, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robaina-Alves, M.; Moutinho, V.; Macedo, P. A new frontier approach to model the eco-efficiency in European countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 562–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pais-Magalhães, V.; Moutinho, V.; Marques, A.C. Scoring method of eco-efficiency using the DEA approach: Evidence from European waste sectors. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 9726–9748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.; Shi, L.; Wang, Y.; Chang, Y.; Cheng, B. The eco-efficiency of pulp and paper industry in China: An assessment based on slacks-based measure and Malmquist–Luenberger index. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Chen, D.; Zhu, B.; Hu, S. Eco-efficiency trends in China, 1978–2010: Decoupling environmental pressure from economic growth. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, M.A.; Ferreira, D.C.; Figueira, J.R.; Marques, R.C. Measuring the efficiency of the Portuguese public hospitals: A value modelled network data envelopment analysis with simulation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 181, 115169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, J.; Chen, K. Measuring the innovation production process: A cross-region empirical study of China’s high-tech innovations. Technovation 2010, 30, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kao, C.; Hwang, S.-N. Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 185, 418–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhshan, S.A. Efficiency ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis by using TOPSIS-DEA method. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2017, 68, 906–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.-T. A DEA ranking method based on cross-efficiency intervals and signal-to-noise ratio. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 261, 207–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Liang, L.; Yang, F. Achievement and benchmarking of countries at the Summer Olympics using cross efficiency evaluation method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 197, 722–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vavrek, R.; Chovancová, J. Assessment of economic and environmental energy performance of EU countries using CV-TOPSIS technique. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 106, 105519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, W.-M.; Kweh, Q.L.; Wang, C.-W. Integration and application of rough sets and data envelopment analysis for assessments of the investment trusts industry. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 296, 163–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.S.; Lu, W.-M. DEA and ranking with the network-based approach: A case of R&D performance. Omega 2010, 38, 453–464. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.S.; Lu, W.-M.; Ho, M.H.-C. National characteristics: Innovation systems from the process efficiency perspective. R&D Manag. 2015, 45, 317–338. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.S.; Lu, W.-M.; Yang, C.; Chuang, M. A network-based approach for increasing discrimination in data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2009, 60, 1502–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, F.; Liu, X.; Michaels, J.L. Social Capital, carbon dependency, and public response to climate change in 22 European countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 114, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wegener, M.; Amin, G.R. Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions using inverse DEA with an application in oil and gas. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 122, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashidi, K.; Farzipoor Saen, R. Measuring eco-efficiency based on green indicators and potentials in energy saving and undesirable output abatement. Energy Econ. 2015, 50, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medialdea, J.T.; Ruiz, J.A.P.; García, C.F.; Capilla, A.C.; Martorell, J.C.; Rodenas, J.B. Potential of science to address the hunger issue: Ecology, biotechnology, cattle breeding and the large pantry of the sea. J. Innov. Knowl. 2018, 3, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.C. Measuring departmental and overall regional performance: Applying the multi-activity DEA model to Taiwan’s cities/counties. Omega 2017, 67, 60–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Sturm, A. Ökologische Rationalität: Ansatzpunkte zur Ausgestaltung von ökologieorientierten Managementinstrumenten. Die Unternehmung 1990, 44, 273–290. [Google Scholar]
- Pastorok, R.A.; Resit, A.; Helen, R.; Scott, F.; Steven, M.B. Role of Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2003, 9, 939–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyckhoff, H.; Allen, K. Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA). Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 132, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, P.; Ang, B.W.; Wang, H. Energy and CO2 emission performance in electricity generation: A non-radial directional distance function approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 221, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Liu, J. Measurement of Low Carbon Economy Efficiency with a Three-Stage Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comparison of the Largest Twenty CO2 Emitting Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Yin, P.; Sun, J.; Chu, J.; Liang, L. Evaluating the environmental efficiency of a two-stage system with undesired outputs by a DEA approach: An interest preference perspective. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 254, 1047–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, J.P.; Weber, K.; Margolis, J.D. Social Issues and Management: Our Lost Cause Found. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 859–881. [Google Scholar]
- Giménez, V.; Ayvar-Campos, F.J.; Navarro-Chávez, J.C.L. Efficiency in the generation of social welfare in Mexico: A proposal in the presence of bad outputs. Omega 2017, 69, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marti, E.; Scherer, A.G. Financial Regulation And Social Welfare: The Critical Contribution Of Management Theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 298–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giovannini, E.; Hall, J.; Morrone, A.; Ranuzzi, G. A Framework to measure the progress of societies. OECD Stat. Work. Pap. 2011, 121, 93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nissi, E.; Sarra, A. A Measure of Well-Being Across the Italian Urban Areas: An Integrated DEA-Entropy Approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 136, 1183–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, F.; Lin, S.-W.; Lu, W.-M. Dynamic eco-efficiency evaluation of the semiconductor industry: A sustainable development perspective. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fried, H.O.; Lovell, C.K.; Schmidt, S.S. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency Productivity Growth; Oxford University Press, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bonacich, P.; Lloyd, P. Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations. Soc. Netw. 2001, 23, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutlu, L. Greenhouse Gas Emission Efficiencies of World Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Definitions | Units | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Inputs for stage 1 | |||
Land | Land area is the overall area of a country, excluding inland water bodies, national claims to the continental shelf, and exclusive economic zones. In most situations, significant rivers and lakes are included in the concept of inland water bodies. | Square kilometer | WB |
Capital | The cost of new fixed assets plus the net change in inventories. | Million USD | WB and IMF |
Labor | All groupings of people aged 15 and up who fit the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) definition of economically active population. | People | WB and IMF |
Energy consumption | The total amount of recycled and non-renewable energy consumed. | Million tons | BP |
Intermediate | |||
GDP | A measure of a country’s economic position, the market price of all final goods and services produced in the country during the year. | Million USD | WB and IMF |
Output for stage 1 | |||
CO2 emission (undesirable) | Greenhouse gases emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels. | Million tons | BP |
Additional input for stage 2 | |||
Government expenditure on general public services | Government spending on executive and legislative bodies, financial and fiscal affairs, external affairs, public debt transactions, general services, foreign economic aid, R&D, basic research, general public services, and transfers of a general nature between different levels of government. | Million USD | IMF |
Government expenditure on economic affairs | Government spending covers general economic, commercial, and labor affairs, agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, fuel and energy, mining, manufacturing and construction, transportation, communication, other industries, R&D economic affairs, and economic affairs. | Million USD | IMF |
Government expenditure on health | Medical products, appliances, and equipment, outpatient services, hospital services, public health services, R&D health, and health are all examples of government spending. | Million USD | IMF |
Government expenditure on education | Total general (local, regional, and national) government education spending (current, capital, and transfers), expressed as a percentage of GDP. It includes government spending funded by transfers from international sources. | Million USD | IMF |
Outputs for stage 2 | |||
Employment population | The employment to population ratio denotes the percentage of a country’s population that is employed. Employment is defined as persons of working age who were engaged in any activity to produce goods or provide services for pay or profit during a short reference period, whether at work during the reference period (i.e., who worked in a job for at least one hour) or not at work due to temporary absence from a job or working-time arrangements. Working-age people are generally considered to be those aged 15 and up. | People | WB |
Population age above 65 | A country’s population aged 65 and up. The population is calculated using the de facto definition, which includes all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship. | People | WB |
Tertiary school enrollment population | Total population of higher school students, regardless of age. | People | OECD |
Factors | Units | Mean | Minimum | Maximum | Std.Dev. | K-S Test a |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land | Square kilometer | 827,475.00 | 20,141.10 | 9,388,211.00 | 2,345,481.00 | p < 0.01 |
Capital | Million USD | 423,543.00 | 6289.40 | 4,866,509.00 | 1,077,108.00 | p < 0.01 |
Labor | People | 42,108,745.00 | 684,412.80 | 786,639,089.00 | 146,348,397.00 | p < 0.01 |
Energy | Million tons | 152.00 | 2.90 | 1709.00 | 406.00 | p < 0.01 |
GDP | Million USD | 1,622,478.00 | 24,316.70 | 17,707,452.00 | 3,713,023.00 | p < 0.01 |
CO2 emission | Million tons | 581.00 | 13.30 | 7864.00 | 1698.00 | p < 0.01 |
Government expenditure on general public services | Million USD | 84,903.00 | 975.40 | 1,016,089.00 | 193,448.00 | p < 0.01 |
Government expenditure on economic affairs | Million USD | 76,921.00 | 1127.90 | 862,939.00 | 187,640.00 | p < 0.01 |
Government expenditure on health | Million USD | 106,239.00 | 1272.90 | 1,594,631.00 | 295,824.00 | p < 0.01 |
Government expenditure on education | Million USD | 82,605.00 | 1439.80 | 1,088,363.00 | 209,487.00 | p < 0.01 |
Employment population | People | 48,204,755.00 | 755,646.10 | 911,642,187.00 | 169,726,118.00 | p < 0.01 |
Population age above 65 | People | 9,559,414.00 | 246,012.60 | 130,420,422.00 | 24,963,669.00 | p < 0.01 |
Tertiary school enrollment population | People | 2,784,949.00 | 51,473.60 | 37,472,107.00 | 7,595,033.00 | p < 0.01 |
Factors | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | Z1 | UEY1 | EX1 | EX2 | EX3 | EX4 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
X2 | 0.979 ** | 1.000 | |||||||||||
X3 | 0.826 ** | 0.900 ** | 1.000 | ||||||||||
X4 | 0.993 ** | 0.994 ** | 0.858 ** | 1.000 | |||||||||
Z1 | 0.938 ** | 0.907 ** | 0.635 ** | 0.937 ** | 1.000 | ||||||||
UEY1 | 0.977 ** | 0.996 ** | 0.921 ** | 0.990 ** | 0.879 ** | 1.000 | |||||||
EX1 | 0.813 ** | 0.753 ** | 0.395 * | 0.804 ** | 0.959 ** | 0.712 ** | 1.000 | ||||||
EX2 | 0.972 ** | 0.999 ** | 0.908 ** | 0.990 ** | 0.896 ** | 0.993 ** | 0.740 ** | 1.000 | |||||
EX3 | 0.741 ** | 0.657 ** | 0.264 | 0.719 ** | 0.912 ** | 0.614 ** | 0.986 ** | 0.639 ** | 1.000 | ||||
EX4 | 0.874 ** | 0.812 ** | 0.479 ** | 0.859 ** | 0.980 ** | 0.779 ** | 0.989 ** | 0.798 ** | 0.972 ** | 1.000 | |||
Y1 | 0.813 ** | 0.889 ** | 0.999 ** | 0.846 ** | 0.615 ** | 0.912 ** | 0.372 * | 0.898 ** | 0.240 | 0.457 * | 1.000 | ||
Y2 | 0.885 ** | 0.952 ** | 0.985 ** | 0.919 ** | 0.744 ** | 0.962 ** | 0.534 ** | 0.959 ** | 0.406 * | 0.601 ** | 0.980 ** | 1.000 | |
Y3 | 0.945 ** | 0.978 ** | 0.956 ** | 0.961 ** | 0.815 ** | 0.986 ** | 0.624 ** | 0.978 ** | 0.513 ** | 0.696 ** | 0.948 ** | 0.980 ** | 1.000 |
Countries | Ecology Efficiency | Ranking | Social Welfare Efficiency | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|
Austria | 0.8491 | (15) | 0.2003 | (27) |
Belgium | 0.9716 | (9) | 0.1926 | (28) |
Bulgaria | 0.736 | (22) | 1 | (1) |
China | 0.7932 | (20) | 0.6329 | (8) |
Croatia | 0.6216 | (26) | 0.4554 | (14) |
Czech Republic | 1 | (1) | 0.2758 | (22) |
Denmark | 0.6241 | (25) | 0.6452 | (7) |
Estonia | 0.9097 | (13) | 0.2443 | (23) |
Finland | 0.8522 | (14) | 0.2109 | (25) |
France | 0.9263 | (10) | 0.4044 | (16) |
Germany | 0.7105 | (23) | 0.5329 | (11) |
Hungary | 0.9235 | (11) | 0.2875 | (21) |
Ireland | 0.9983 | (7) | 0.5633 | (9) |
Israel | 0.9828 | (8) | 0.3779 | (18) |
Italy | 0.8019 | (19) | 1 | (1) |
Lithuania | 0.8026 | (18) | 0.5199 | (12) |
New Zealand | 1 | (1) | 0.1426 | (29) |
Norway | 0.7708 | (21) | 0.7555 | (6) |
Poland | 1 | (1) | 0.5056 | (13) |
Portugal | 0.6168 | (27) | 0.9165 | (5) |
Romania | 0.8332 | (17) | 0.3724 | (19) |
Slovak | 0.835 | (16) | 0.3994 | (17) |
Slovenia | 0.9191 | (12) | 0.2438 | (24) |
Spain | 1 | (1) | 0.2046 | (26) |
Sweden | 0.573 | (28) | 1 | (1) |
Switzerland | 1 | (1) | 0.421 | (15) |
Turkey | 1 | (1) | 0.3035 | (20) |
United Kingdom | 0.7053 | (24) | 0.5448 | (10) |
United States | 0.3555 | (29) | 1 | (1) |
Average | 0.8315 | 0.4949 | ||
Total efficient countries | 6 | 4 |
Input Factors | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land | Capital | Labor | Energy | ||||||||
Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | ||||
Bulgaria | 0.223316 | (1) | Bulgaria | 0.223575 | (1) | Bulgaria | 0.223195 | (1) | Bulgaria | 0.223435 | (1) |
Croatia | 0.223316 | (1) | Croatia | 0.223575 | (1) | Croatia | 0.223195 | (1) | Croatia | 0.223435 | (1) |
Czech Republic | 0.223316 | (1) | Czech Republic | 0.223575 | (1) | Czech Republic | 0.223195 | (1) | Czech Republic | 0.223435 | (1) |
Estonia | 0.223316 | (1) | Estonia | 0.223575 | (1) | Estonia | 0.223195 | (1) | Estonia | 0.223435 | (1) |
Finland | 0.223316 | (1) | Finland | 0.223575 | (1) | Finland | 0.223195 | (1) | Finland | 0.223435 | (1) |
Hungary | 0.223316 | (1) | Hungary | 0.223575 | (1) | Hungary | 0.223195 | (1) | Hungary | 0.223435 | (1) |
Ireland | 0.223316 | (1) | Ireland | 0.223575 | (1) | Ireland | 0.223195 | (1) | Ireland | 0.223435 | (1) |
Israel | 0.223316 | (1) | Israel | 0.223575 | (1) | Israel | 0.223195 | (1) | Israel | 0.223435 | (1) |
Lithuania | 0.223316 | (1) | Lithuania | 0.223575 | (1) | Lithuania | 0.223195 | (1) | Lithuania | 0.223435 | (1) |
New Zealand | 0.223316 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.223575 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.223195 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.223435 | (1) |
Romania | 0.223316 | (1) | Romania | 0.223575 | (1) | Romania | 0.223195 | (1) | Romania | 0.223435 | (1) |
Slovenia | 0.223316 | (1) | Slovenia | 0.223575 | (1) | Slovenia | 0.223195 | (1) | Slovenia | 0.223435 | (1) |
Spain | 0.223316 | (1) | Spain | 0.223575 | (1) | Spain | 0.223195 | (1) | Spain | 0.223435 | (1) |
Slovak Republic | 0.223316 | (1) | Slovak Republic | 0.223575 | (1) | Slovak Republic | 0.223195 | (1) | Slovak Republic | 0.223435 | (1) |
Austria | 0.205360 | (15) | Austria | 0.205614 | (15) | Austria | 0.205250 | (15) | Austria | 0.205524 | (15) |
Intermediate | Undesirable Output | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GDP | CO2 Emissions | ||||
Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | ||
Finland | 0.257666 | (1) | Bulgaria | 0.223299 | (1) |
New Zealand | 0.257666 | (1) | Croatia | 0.223299 | (1) |
Spain | 0.257666 | (1) | Czech Republic | 0.223299 | (1) |
Romania | 0.254200 | (4) | Estonia | 0.223299 | (1) |
Estonia | 0.250589 | (5) | Finland | 0.223299 | (1) |
Czech Republic | 0.248091 | (6) | Hungary | 0.223299 | (1) |
Slovak Republic | 0.247188 | (7) | Ireland | 0.223299 | (1) |
Ireland | 0.247185 | (8) | Israel | 0.223299 | (1) |
Hungary | 0.236101 | (9) | Lithuania | 0.223299 | (1) |
Austria | 0.234099 | (10) | New Zealand | 0.223299 | (1) |
Belgium | 0.229228 | (11) | Romania | 0.223299 | (1) |
Slovenia | 0.219672 | (12) | Slovenia | 0.223299 | (1) |
Germany | 0.198977 | (13) | Spain | 0.223299 | (1) |
Poland | 0.196221 | (14) | Slovak Republic | 0.223299 | (1) |
Sweden | 0.189684 | (15) | Austria | 0.205371 | (15) |
Input Factors | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Government Expenditure on General Public Services | Government Expenditure on Economic Affairs | Government Expenditure on Health | Government Expenditure on Education | ||||||||
Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | ||||
Belgium | 0.218450 | (1) | Belgium | 0.218398 | (1) | Belgium | 0.218170 | (1) | Belgium | 0.218552 | (1) |
Finland | 0.218450 | (1) | Finland | 0.218398 | (1) | Finland | 0.218170 | (1) | Finland | 0.218552 | (1) |
France | 0.218450 | (1) | France | 0.218398 | (1) | France | 0.218170 | (1) | France | 0.218552 | (1) |
New Zealand | 0.218450 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.218398 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.218170 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.218552 | (1) |
Norway | 0.218450 | (1) | Norway | 0.218398 | (1) | Norway | 0.218170 | (1) | Norway | 0.218552 | (1) |
Poland | 0.218450 | (1) | Poland | 0.218398 | (1) | Poland | 0.218170 | (1) | Poland | 0.218552 | (1) |
Spain | 0.218450 | (1) | Spain | 0.218398 | (1) | Spain | 0.218170 | (1) | Spain | 0.218552 | (1) |
Sweden | 0.218450 | (1) | Sweden | 0.218398 | (1) | Sweden | 0.218170 | (1) | Sweden | 0.218552 | (1) |
United Kingdom | 0.218450 | (1) | United Kingdom | 0.218398 | (1) | United Kingdom | 0.218170 | (1) | United Kingdom | 0.218552 | (1) |
Romania | 0.216727 | (10) | Romania | 0.215053 | (10) | Romania | 0.217085 | (10) | Romania | 0.216275 | (10) |
Switzerland | 0.216690 | (11) | Switzerland | 0.215020 | (11) | Switzerland | 0.217062 | (11) | Switzerland | 0.216250 | (11) |
Slovak Republic | 0.210317 | (12) | Slovak Republic | 0.210327 | (12) | Slovak Republic | 0.210022 | (12) | Slovak Republic | 0.210432 | (12) |
Ireland | 0.210312 | (13) | Ireland | 0.210324 | (13) | Ireland | 0.210017 | (13) | Ireland | 0.210430 | (13) |
Austria | 0.209197 | (14) | Austria | 0.209141 | (14) | Austria | 0.208929 | (14) | Austria | 0.209291 | (14) |
Estonia | 0.200968 | (15) | Estonia | 0.201529 | (15) | Estonia | 0.200584 | (15) | Estonia | 0.200968 | (15) |
Output Factors | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Employment Population | Population Age above 65 | Tertiary School Enrollment Population | ||||||
Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | Country | Eigenvector Centrality | |||
Belgium | 0.218366 | (1) | Belgium | 0.217690 | (1) | Belgium | 0.218349 | (1) |
Finland | 0.218366 | (1) | Finland | 0.217690 | (1) | Finland | 0.218349 | (1) |
France | 0.218366 | (1) | France | 0.217690 | (1) | France | 0.218349 | (1) |
New Zealand | 0.218366 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.217690 | (1) | New Zealand | 0.218349 | (1) |
Norway | 0.218366 | (1) | Norway | 0.217690 | (1) | Norway | 0.218349 | (1) |
Poland | 0.218366 | (1) | Poland | 0.217690 | (1) | Poland | 0.218349 | (1) |
Spain | 0.218366 | (1) | Spain | 0.217690 | (1) | Spain | 0.218349 | (1) |
Sweden | 0.218366 | (1) | Sweden | 0.217690 | (1) | Sweden | 0.218349 | (1) |
United Kingdom | 0.218366 | (1) | United Kingdom | 0.217690 | (1) | United Kingdom | 0.218349 | (1) |
Romania | 0.214503 | (10) | Romania | 0.215933 | (10) | Romania | 0.216508 | (10) |
Switzerland | 0.214475 | (11) | Switzerland | 0.215902 | (11) | Switzerland | 0.216489 | (11) |
Slovak Republic | 0.210314 | (12) | Slovak Republic | 0.209581 | (12) | Slovak Republic | 0.210222 | (12) |
Ireland | 0.210312 | (13) | Ireland | 0.209579 | (13) | Ireland | 0.210220 | (13) |
Austria | 0.209108 | (14) | Austria | 0.208465 | (14) | Austria | 0.209100 | (14) |
Estonia | 0.201508 | (15) | Estonia | 0.200674 | (15) | Estonia | 0.201343 | (15) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, Z.-J.; Le, M.-H.; Lu, W.-M. An Innovation Perspective to Explore the Ecology and Social Welfare Efficiencies of Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095113
Liu Z-J, Le M-H, Lu W-M. An Innovation Perspective to Explore the Ecology and Social Welfare Efficiencies of Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095113
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Z-John, Minh-Hieu Le, and Wen-Min Lu. 2022. "An Innovation Perspective to Explore the Ecology and Social Welfare Efficiencies of Countries" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095113