*4.2. Efficienct and Inefficient Terms*

As per the math in Section 3.3, the countries acquire efficiency when their scores are equal to 1; they are inefficient if their scores are under 1. Table 2 denotes the scores of every country in each term; the scores account for efficient and inefficient terms as well. Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates are inefficient countries in whole terms because their scores are always lower than 1. Germany achieved efficiency during the period of 2008–2011 and 2013–2014 with its score at 1; however, it proved inefficient in 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2017, as its scores are 0.9062, 0.776, 0.9115, and 0.9861, respectively. The Netherlands attained performance except it remained inefficient in 2015 with a score of 0.9601. Portugal remained efficient from 2008 to 2016, but the growth of modern society led to increased consumption of electricity, which further led to increased CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions in 2017; as a consequence, it remained inefficient in 2017 with a score of 0.9999. Colombia approached efficiency from 2011 to 2013 and excluding inefficient terms from 2014 to 2017, had scores of 0.7522, 0.7069, 0.9692, 0.7257, 0.5765, 0.517, and 0.5291, respectively. Mexico remained inefficient for nine years, as its scores were from 0.2847 to 0.3641, although its score reached 1 in 2015. Japan was efficient during 2009–2011 and inefficient in 2008 and 2012–2017, when its scores were 0.8572, 0.8379, 0.7002, 0.6128, 0.7925, and 0.6942, respectively. Australia achieved efficient performance status during 2010–2015 and in 2017; its scores in 2008, 2009, and 2016 were 0.6228, 0.5712, and 0.8924, respectively. New Zealand remained efficient from 2009 to 2017, excluding 2008, as its score is 0.7689. Algeria achieved efficiency from 2008 to 2010, but remained inefficient during 2011–2017, as its scores are under 1. Besides, five countries, including the United Kingdom, Norway, United States, Nigeria, and Kuwait, were assigned as efficient in the whole term, as their results compute to be 1. Further, these results reveal the ratio among inputs and desirable and undesirable outputs at the balance level.


**Table 2.** Scores of 42 countries over the period of 2008–2017.

The above analysis results point out the efficient and inefficient terms in every year, where there are 12 efficient countries and 30 inefficient countries during the period from 2009 to 2011; from 2012 to 2013, there are 11 efficient countries and 31 inefficient countries; 2014 has 10 efficient countries, and 32 inefficient countries; 2008 and 2015 have nine efficient countries and 33 inefficient countries; the period of 2016–2017 has eight efficient countries and 34 inefficient countries. Thus, the quantity of inefficient countries is more than that of efficient countries. The empirical results indicate that United Kingdom, Norway, United States, Nigeria, and Kuwait always approach the efficiency without fluctuation.
