International Comparison of the Efficiency of Agricultural Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Case Study of G20 Countries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Definition of Efficiency of ASTI
2.2. Data Envelopment Analysis
2.3. Indicators Selection
2.4. Data Sources
3. Empirical Results and Discussion
3.1. Comprehensive Efficiency Analysis of ASTI
3.1.1. Overall Analysis of the Comprehensive Efficiency of ASTI
3.1.2. Input Redundancy and Output Deficiency of ASTI
3.2. Total Factor Productivity Analysis of ASTI
3.2.1. TFPC Decomposition of ASTI under Time Dimension
3.2.2. TFPC Decomposition of ASTI under Spatial Dimension
3.3. Classification and Change Analysis of National ASTI level
4. Conclusions and Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, Z.H.; Sun, T.T. American Agricultural Product: Analyzing Its International Competitiveness. Acad. Exc. 2019, 10, 99–113. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, H.K.; Mao, S.P. Green-Ecological Transformation of EU Common Agricultural Policy: Policy Evolution, Reform Trend and Its Enlightenment. Issues Agric. Econ. 2019, 9, 134–144. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, Y.T.; Sun, L.X.; Mao, S.P. Agricultural R&D policies in the UK and their implications to China. Res. Agric. Modern. 2018, 39, 559–566. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Ministry of Agriculture on Printing and Distributing “Agricultural Science and Technology Development Plan (2006–2020)”. Available online: http://www.moa.gov.cn/nybgb/2007/dqq/201806/t20180614_6151989.htm (accessed on 16 November 2020).
- Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: Notice of the Ministry of Agriculture on Printing and Distributing “The National Plan for the Construction of Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Capacity (2012–2016)”. Available online: http://www.moa.gov.cn/nybgb/2013/dliuq/201805/t20180509_6141642.htm (accessed on 16 November 2020).
- Wennekers, S.; Thurik, R. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Bus. Econ. Group 1999, 13, 27–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollanders, H.; Celikel-Esser, F. Measuring Innovation Efficiency; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z.Y.; Chen, X.F.; Chu, J.F.; Zhu, Q.Y. Industrial development environment and innovation efficiency of high-tech industry: Analysis based on the framework of innovation systems. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 30, 434–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, J.C.; Chen, K.H. Modeling macro-R&D production frontier performance: An application to Chinese province-level R&D. Scientometrics 2010, 82, 165–173. [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, K.R.; Guan, J.C. Measuring the R&D efficiency of regions by a parallel DEA game model. Scientometrics 2017, 112, 175–194. [Google Scholar]
- Perović, S.; Radovanović, S.; Sikimić, V.; Berber, A. Optimal research team composition: Data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments. Scientometrics 2016, 108, 83–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, D.; Mancuso, P.; Mastrodonato, S.L.; Morea, D. Efficiency assessment of knowledge intensive business services industry in Italy: Data envelopment analysis (DEA) and financial ratio analysis. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2019, 23, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R. The scientific wealth of European nations: Taking effectiveness into account. Scientometrics 1998, 42, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, T.W.; Hung, S.W.; Lu, W.M. DEA performance measurement of the national innovation system in Asia and Europe. Asia Pac. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 27, 369–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, J.C.; Chen, K.H. Modeling the relative efficiency of national innovation systems. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broekel, T.; Rogge, N.; Brenner, T. The innovation efficiency of German regions-A shared-input DEA approach. Rev. Reg. Res. 2018, 38, 77–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zemtsov, S.; Kotsemir, M. An assessment of regional innovation system efficiency in Russia: The application of the DEA approach. Scientometrics 2019, 120, 375–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Zhao, X.L.; Zhang, Z.Z. The time lags effects of innovation input on output in national innovation systems: The case of China. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2016, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, J.; Kim, C.; Yang, H. The Effect of Sustainability as Innovation Objectives on Innovation Efficiency. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, J.H. Open innovation of small and medium-sized enterprises and innovation efficiency. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2018, 26, 115–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, B.W. The empirical analysis of the innovation efficiency of Agricultural science and technology parks in China based on Malmquist index method. Sci. Technol. Pro. Policy 2011, 28, 129–133. [Google Scholar]
- Du, J. Analysis of the Input-output Efficiency of Agriculture Science and Technology Innovation in China Based on Data Envelopment Analysis. Sci. Technol. Pro. Policy 2013, 30, 82–85. [Google Scholar]
- Mekonnen, D.K.; Spielman, D.J.; Fonsah, E.G.; Dorfman, J.H. Innovation Systems and Technical Efficiency in Developing-Country Agriculture. Agric. Econ. 2015, 46, 689–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Z.; Zheng, R.; Li, P.H.; Huang, S. Evaluation and analysis of agricultural science and technology innovation efficiency in Henan Province. J. Henan Agric. Univ. 2018, 52, 464–469. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.H.; Bai, L.P. Study on Resource Allocation Efficiency and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Science and Technological Innovation in Yunnan Province. Chin. J. Agri. Resour. Region. Plan 2019, 40, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, X.Y.; Du, X.; Wang, D. Evaluation and comparative analysis of the efficiency of provincial agricultural science, technology and innovation in China. Stud. Explor. 2020, 42, 141–147. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, M.T. A Study on Allocation Efficiency and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Resources in China. East Chin. Econ. Manag. 2014, 28, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, E.C. R&D efficiency and economic performance: A cross-country analysis using the stochastic frontier approach. J. Policy Model 2007, 29, 345–360. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, E.; Huang, W. Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 260–273. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.; Du, X.; Sun, J.; Guo, X.Y.; Chen, Y. Synergy of national agricultural innovation systems. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bloch, H.; Metcalfe, S. Innovation, creative destruction, and price theory. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2018, 27, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, M.J. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1957, 120, 253–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alirezaee, M.R.; Howland, M.; van de Panne, C. Sampling Size and Efficiency Bias in Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Appl. Math. Decis. Sci. 1998, 2, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wober, K.W. Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Travel. Tour. Mark. 2007, 21, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banker, R.D.; Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W. Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Manag. Sci. 1984, 30, 1078–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, K.; Bossink, B.; Chen, Q. Efficiency Evaluation of Regional Sustainable Innovation in China: A Slack-Based Measure (SBM) Model with Undesirable Outputs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fare, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Norris, M.; Zhang, Z.Y. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 66–83. [Google Scholar]
- Fare, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Kokkelenberg, E.C. Measuring Plant Capacity, Utilization and Technical Change: A Nonparametric Approach. Int. Econ. Rev. 1989, 30, 655–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouenniche, J.; Carrales, S. Assessing efficiency profiles of UK commercial banks: A DEA analysis with regression-based feedback. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 266, 551–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, C.; Wang, X.J. The influence of ICT-driven innovation: A comparative study on national innovation efficiency between developed and emerging countries. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2019, 38, 876–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, S.R.; Xue, X.S.; Yin, G. Evaluation and Improvement of Technological Innovation Efficiency of New Energy Vehicle Enterprises in China Based on DEA-Tobit Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.Y.; Deng, N.Q.; Gao, H.L. Research on Technological Innovation Efficiency of Tourist Equipment Manufacturing Enterprises. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cruz-Cázares, C.; Bayona-Sáez, C.; García-Marco, T. You can’t manage right what you can’t measure well: Technological innovation efficiency. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suh, Y.; Kim, M.S. A taxonomy of service innovations based on the innovative activity efficiency of service firms: A DEA approach. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag. 2014, 20, 267–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Zhao, X.L.; Guo, X.Y.; Hu, Y.; Du, X. Theoretical framework and capability evaluation for the national agricultural science, technology and innovation—An empirical study based on the group of twenty. Chin. Soft. Sci. 2018, 3, 18–35. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, M.G.; Svenson, R.A. Measuring R&D productivity. Res. Technol. Manag. 1998, 41, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
- Kaihua, C.; Mingting, K. Staged efficiency and its determinants of regional innovation systems: A two-step analytical procedure. Ann. Regional. Sci. 2014, 52, 627–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.W.; Hang, Y.; Sun, L.C.; Zhao, Z.Y. Two-stage innovation efficiency of new energy enterprises in China: A non-radial DEA approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 112, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Yu, H.X. Research on Technology Innovation Efficiency and Innovation Capacity of Pharmaceutical Industry in Hebei Province. Sci. Technol. Manage. Res. 2012, 32, 85–90. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Tang, L.B.; Jin, P.Z. Study on the Measurement and Influencing Factors of the BRICs’ Innovation Capability. Chin. Soft. Sci. 2015, 6, 148–157. [Google Scholar]
Authors and Title | DEA Model | Input Indicators | Output Indicators |
---|---|---|---|
Chen, Z.; Zheng, R. et al. (2018) [24] Evaluation and analysis of agricultural science and technology innovation efficiency in Henan Province | CCR | Agricultural R&D expenditure; Agricultural R&D researchers; Total power of agricultural machinery | Number of agricultural journal papers; Total output value of Agriculture |
Guo, X.Y.; Du, X. et al. (2020) [26] Evaluation and comparative analysis of the efficiency of provincial agricultural science, technology and innovation in China | BCC | Agricultural R&D expenditure; Agricultural R&D researchers | Number of agricultural patents; Number of new plant varieties; Added value of agriculture |
Park, J.H. (2018) [20] Open innovation of small and medium-sized enterprises and innovation efficiency | BCC | The value of R&D expenditure divided by the total sales; The share of R&D staff in total employment | The percentage of sales from R&D activities |
Shin, J.; Kim, C. (2018) [19] The Effect of Sustainability as Innovation Objectives on Innovation Efficiency | SBM | R&D Employee; R&D Expense | Patent Application; Innovation Sales |
Zhang, C.; Wang, X.J. (2019) [41] The influence of ICT-driven innovation: a comparative study on national innovation efficiency between developed and emerging countries | BCC | Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D; Total Researcher | Triadic Patent Families; Science & Engineering Articles; Value Added of Knowledge and Technology Intensive Industries |
Fang, S.R.; Xue, X.S.; Yin, G. (2020) [42] Evaluation and Improvement of Technological Innovation Efficiency of New Energy Vehicle Enterprises in China Based on DEA-Tobit Model | two-stage DEA | Total assets R&D expenditure; Total number of employees; Technical asset rate | Number of patents; Operating income Net profit |
Lin, Y.Y.; Deng, N.Q.; Gao, H.L. (2018) [43] Research on Technological Innovation Efficiency of Tourist Equipment Manufacturing Enterprises | DEA-Malmquist | Intensity of R & D personnel; Intensity of R & D expenditure | Number of patent applications; Profit ratio of sales; Total labor productivity |
Index | Sub-Index | Indicator | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Input | R&D personnel | : Number of agricultural researchers | UNESCO-UIS |
R&D expenditure | : Percentage shares of R&D expenditure in agricultural value added | UNESCO-UIS, FAO | |
Output | Scientific and technological output | : Number of agricultural journal papers | WOS |
: Number of agricultural patents | WIPO | ||
Economic performance | : Agricultural value added (annual % growth) | WB |
Indicator | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 14.81 | 19.48 | 0.12 | 95.92 |
X2 | 42.17 | 27.39 | 5.92 | 89.94 |
Y1 | 10.99 | 11.43 | 0.11 | 49.47 |
Y2 | 11.89 | 19.07 | 0.01 | 100.00 |
Y3 | 39.78 | 9.95 | 0.10 | 92.87 |
Frequency | R&D Personnel | R&D Expenditure | Agricultural Journal Papers | Agricultural Patents | Economic Performance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, United Kingdom | Germany, United Kingdom | Argentina, Canada, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey | ||
1–4 | France, Germany, Italy, Republic of Korea, Turkey | Argentina, Australia, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Russian Federation, Turkey | Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, United Kingdom | Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation | Australia, France, Germany, United Kingdom |
5–10 | Japan, Russian Federation | Canada, France, Italy, Republic of Korea, South Africa, United Kingdom | Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Turkey | Argentina, South Africa, Turkey |
Country | R&D Personnel | R&D Expenditure | Agricultural Journal Papers | Agricultural Patents | Economic Performance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canada | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
France | 0.30 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Germany | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Italy | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Japan | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Republic of Korea | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Russian Federation | 0.63 | 0.00 | 7.00 | 2.90 | 0.00 |
Turkey | 0.09 | 0.00 | 2.46 | 0.88 | 0.00 |
United Kingdom | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Period | Total Factor Productivity Change (TFPC) | Technical Efficiency Change (TEC) | Technological Change (TC) | Pure Efficiency Change (PEC) | Scale Efficiency Change (SEC) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Efficiency | ||||||
2008–2009 | 0.826 | 0.871 | 0.949 | 0.875 | 0.995 | |
2009–2010 | 1.217 | 1.063 | 1.144 | 0.970 | 1.096 | |
2010–2011 | 1.017 | 0.889 | 1.144 | 1.158 | 0.768 | |
2011–2012 | 0.945 | 0.973 | 0.971 | 0.998 | 0.975 | |
2012–2013 | 0.937 | 1.351 | 0.694 | 1.003 | 1.347 | |
2013–2014 | 0.890 | 0.964 | 0.923 | 1.051 | 0.917 | |
2014–2015 | 0.958 | 0.931 | 1.030 | 0.950 | 0.980 | |
2015–2016 | 0.976 | 1.023 | 0.954 | 0.944 | 1.083 | |
2016–2017 | 1.117 | 1.079 | 1.035 | 1.077 | 1.002 | |
Mean Value | 0.981 | 1.008 | 0.974 | 1.000 | 1.008 |
G20 Developed Countries | G20 Developing Countries | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TFPC | TEC | TC | PEC | SEC | TFPC | TEC | TC | PEC | SEC | |
2008–2009 | 0.917 | 0.957 | 0.958 | 0.919 | 1.042 | 0.752 | 0.800 | 0.940 | 0.837 | 0.955 |
2009–2010 | 1.080 | 0.951 | 1.136 | 0.887 | 1.073 | 1.354 | 1.176 | 1.152 | 1.052 | 1.117 |
2010–2011 | 1.001 | 0.770 | 1.301 | 1.192 | 0.645 | 1.032 | 1.013 | 1.018 | 1.128 | 0.898 |
2011–2012 | 1.014 | 1.043 | 0.972 | 1.037 | 1.005 | 0.888 | 0.915 | 0.971 | 0.964 | 0.949 |
2012–2013 | 0.851 | 1.563 | 0.544 | 0.906 | 1.726 | 1.022 | 1.184 | 0.863 | 1.098 | 1.078 |
2013–2014 | 0.867 | 0.928 | 0.934 | 1.093 | 0.849 | 0.911 | 0.997 | 0.914 | 1.014 | 0.983 |
2014–2015 | 0.859 | 0.868 | 0.990 | 0.924 | 0.939 | 1.058 | 0.991 | 1.067 | 0.973 | 1.019 |
2015–2016 | 1.025 | 1.073 | 0.955 | 0.943 | 1.138 | 0.933 | 0.980 | 0.952 | 0.946 | 1.036 |
2016–2017 | 1.092 | 1.047 | 1.043 | 1.057 | 0.990 | 1.140 | 1.109 | 1.028 | 1.095 | 1.013 |
Country | TFPC | TEC | TC | PEC | SEC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Saudi Arabia | 1.114 | 1.000 | 1.114 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Japan | 1.075 | 1.111 | 0.967 | 1.009 | 1.100 |
China | 1.066 | 1.000 | 1.066 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Mexico | 1.039 | 1.054 | 0.986 | 1.043 | 1.011 |
Republic of Korea | 1.028 | 1.077 | 0.955 | 0.997 | 1.080 |
Russian Federation | 1.006 | 1.006 | 1.000 | 0.990 | 1.016 |
Argentina | 1.004 | 1.078 | 0.931 | 1.051 | 1.026 |
Australia | 0.994 | 1.000 | 0.994 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Turkey | 0.976 | 1.008 | 0.969 | 0.999 | 1.009 |
United States | 0.976 | 1.003 | 0.973 | 1.000 | 1.003 |
South Africa | 0.960 | 0.964 | 0.995 | 1.000 | 0.964 |
France | 0.958 | 1.014 | 0.945 | 1.019 | 0.995 |
Indonesia | 0.955 | 1.000 | 0.955 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
India | 0.948 | 1.000 | 0.948 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Italy | 0.945 | 1.006 | 0.939 | 0.985 | 1.022 |
Germany | 0.929 | 0.983 | 0.946 | 0.978 | 1.004 |
Brazil | 0.923 | 1.009 | 0.915 | 1.000 | 1.009 |
United Kingdom | 0.897 | 0.932 | 0.963 | 0.965 | 0.966 |
Canada | 0.882 | 0.922 | 0.957 | 0.964 | 0.957 |
Source | Country | ||
---|---|---|---|
TFPC > 1 | TEC > 1, TC ≤ 1 | Argentina, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation | SEC > 1 (Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation) |
PEC > 1, SEC > 1 (Japan, Mexico, Argentina) | |||
TC > 1, TEC ≤ 1 | China, Saudi Arabia |
Source | Country | ||
---|---|---|---|
TFPC < 1 | TC < 1, TEC < 1 | South Africa, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada | SEC < 1 (South Africa) |
PEC < 1 (Germany) | |||
SEC < 1, PEC < 1 (United Kingdom, Canada) | |||
TC < 1, TEC ≥ 1 | Australia, Turkey, United States, France, Indonesia, India, Italy, Brazil |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, X.; Deng, C.; Wang, D.; Du, X.; Li, J.; Wan, B. International Comparison of the Efficiency of Agricultural Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Case Study of G20 Countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052769
Guo X, Deng C, Wang D, Du X, Li J, Wan B. International Comparison of the Efficiency of Agricultural Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Case Study of G20 Countries. Sustainability. 2021; 13(5):2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052769
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Xiangyu, Canhui Deng, Dan Wang, Xu Du, Jiali Li, and Bowen Wan. 2021. "International Comparison of the Efficiency of Agricultural Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Case Study of G20 Countries" Sustainability 13, no. 5: 2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052769