非合作博弈两阶段生产系统的效率评价——基于自由处置和管理处置的视角

doi:10.12005/orms.2022.0023

运筹与管理 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (1): 155-161.DOI: 10.12005/orms.2022.0023

非合作博弈两阶段生产系统的效率评价——基于自由处置和管理处置的视角

陈帆^1,2, 姚卫新¹

1.东华大学旭日工商管理学院,上海 200051;
2.浙江科技学院经济与管理学院,浙江杭州 310023

收稿日期:2020-11-10 出版日期:2022-01-25 发布日期:2022-02-11
作者简介:陈帆(1979-),女,江西省萍乡人,讲师,东华大学旭日工商管理学院博士研究生,研究方向:产业效率、资源环境与区域发展研究。姚卫新(1967-),男,江苏省宜兴人,教授,博士,博士生导师,研究方向为资源再利用、电子商务和供应链管理。
基金资助:
浙江省软科学研究计划项目(2019C35048);教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目(18YJA790108)

Efficiency Evaluation of Two Stage Production System Based on Non-cooperative Game ——under Perspective of Natural and Managerial Disposability

CHEN Fan^1,2, YAO Wei-xin¹

1. Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai 200051,China;
2. School of Economics and Management, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China

Received:2020-11-10 Online:2022-01-25 Published:2022-02-11

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了识别被动适应环境和采取创新技术主动适应环境的生产系统的效率差异,基于主从非合作框架和决策者的期望需求,分别从自由处置和管理处置的视角建立了两阶段生产系统效率评价模型,应用模型对2017年中国24省市工业生产系统效率进行了分析。结果表明:两种环境适应策略下,中国24个省市工业生产的两个子系统的效率均值都较高,主要分布在中国东部。24省市在自由处置模式下的技术差距较小,管理处置模式下的技术差距较大。24省市技术创新的重点在于减少工业废水和工业废气的排放,但是对一般工业固体废物减量化的重视程度不足。各省市工业固体废物处理无效的根源包括固体废物减量化无效、固体废物再利用和固体废物处置同时无效,以及混合无效三种方式。

关键词: 自由处置, 管理处置, DEA, 两阶段生产系统, 非合作博弈

Abstract: In order to identify the difference in production systems efficiency between companies’ passive adaptation to the environment and actively adapt to the environment, this article is based on the master-slave non-cooperative framework to establish the two-stage production system efficiency evaluation models from the perspectives of natural disposability and managerial disposability. The models consider the expectations of decision makers. Then the efficiency of industrial production systems in 24 provinces and cities in China in 2017 is analyzed. The result shows:Under the two environmental adaptation strategies, the average efficiency of the two subsystems of industrial production in 24 provinces and cities in China is relatively high, mainly distributed in eastern China. The 24 provinces and cities have relatively small technological gaps under the natural disposability mode, and large technological gaps under the managerial disposability mode. The focus of technological innovation in 24 provinces and cities is to reduce the discharge of industrial waste water and industrial waste gas, but insufficient attention have been paid to the reduction of general industrial solid waste. The causes of the inefficiency of industrial solid waste treatment in various provinces and cities include three methods: ineffective solid waste reduction, solid waste reuse and solid waste disposal at the same time, and mixed ineffectiveness.

Key words: natural disposability, managerial disposability, DEA, two-stage production system, non-cooperative game

中图分类号:

F224.3

陈帆, 姚卫新. 非合作博弈两阶段生产系统的效率评价——基于自由处置和管理处置的视角[J]. 运筹与管理, 2022, 31(1): 155-161.

CHEN Fan, YAO Wei-xin. Efficiency Evaluation of Two Stage Production System Based on Non-cooperative Game ——under Perspective of Natural and Managerial Disposability[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2022, 31(1): 155-161.

参考文献

[1] Wang M, Chen Y, Zhou Z. A novel stochastic two-stage DEA model for evaluating industrial production and waste gas treatment systems[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(6): 2316-2324.
[2] Fang L. Opening the“black box”of environmental production technology in a nonparametric analysis[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2020, 286: 769-780.
[3] 卞亦文.非合作博弈两阶段生产系统的环境效率评价[J].管理科学学报,2012,7:11-19.
[4] Yu Y, Shi Q. Two-stage DEA model with additional input in the second stage and part of inter-mediate products as final output[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2014, 41(15): 6570-6574.
[5] Wu J, Zhu Q, Ji X, et al. Two-stage network processes with shared resources and resources recovered from undesirable outputs[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2016, 251(1): 182-197.
[6] Guo C, Zhu J. Non-cooperative two-stage network DEA model: linear vs. parametric linear[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2017, 258: 398-400.
[7] Chen L, Lai F, Wang Y M, et al. A two-stage network data envelopment analysis approach for measuring and decomposing environmental efficiency[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2018, 119(5): 388-403.
[8] Ma J, Qi L, Deng L. Additive centralized and stackelberg DEA models for two-stage system with shared resources[J]. International Transactions in Operational Research, 2018. 1-19.
[9] Kao C. Inefficiency identification for closed series production systems[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2019, 275: 599-607.
[10] Maghbouli M, Amirteimoori A, Kordrostami S. Two-stage network structures with undesirable outputs: a DEA based approach[J]. Measurement, 2014, 48: 109-118.
[11] Sueyoshi T, Goto M. Measurement of a linkage among environmental,operational and nancial performance in japanese manufacturingrms: a use of data envelopment analysis with strong complementary slackness condition[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 207: 1742-1753.
[12] Sueyoshi T, Goto M. DEA radial and non-radial models for unified efficiency under natural and managerial disposability: theoretical extension by strong complementary slackness conditions[J]. Energy Economics, 2012, 34(3): 700-713.
[13] Zhou X, Chen H, Wang H, et al. Natural and managerial disposability based DEA model for China’s regional environmental efficiency assessment[J]. Energies, 2019, 12: 3436-3456.
[14] Wang X, Wang Y. Regional unified environmental efficiency of China: a non-separable hybrid measure under natural and managerialdisposability[J]. EnvironmentalScience and Pollution Research, 2020, (5): 1-17.
[15] Sueyoshi T, Goto M. Difficulties and remedies on DEA environmental assessment[J]. Journal of Economic Structures, 2018, 7(1): 7-27.
[16] 陈真玲,赵伟刚,李金铠.中国制造业能源拥挤效应研究:基于RAM-DEA模型的分析[J].系统工程理论与实践,2019,39(7):1831-1844.
[17] Cui Q. Airline energy efficiency measures using a network range-adjustedmeasure with unified natural and managerial disposability[J]. Energy Efficiency, 2020, 7: 1-17.
[18] Chen Y, Xu W, Zhou Q, et al. Total factor energy efficiency, carbon emission efficiency, and technology gap: evidence from sub-industries of anhui province in China[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12: 1402-1423.
[19] 刘娟,尹君.基于OUTPUT-DEA模型的工业固体废弃物利用效率评价[J].统计与决策,2013,(23):50-53.

非合作博弈两阶段生产系统的效率评价——基于自由处置和管理处置的视角

Efficiency Evaluation of Two Stage Production System Based on Non-cooperative Game ——under Perspective of Natural and Managerial Disposability

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	李勇军, 蔡华权. 基于Shephard距离函数的DEA TOPSIS方法研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2021, 30(5): 116-121.
[2]	曹洁, 雷良海. 基于广义CoES方法的金融业与房地产业风险溢出研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2021, 30(4): 200-205.
[3]	姚佼, 唐庆云, 陈学敏, 郭晓峰, 熊杨辉. 基于DEA-博弈论模型的铁路电子车票实名制查验评价分析[J]. 运筹与管理, 2021, 30(3): 165-170.
[4]	吴辉, 昂胜, 杨锋. 基于前景理论的两阶段DEA交叉效率评价模型[J]. 运筹与管理, 2021, 30(11): 53-59.
[5]	李勇军, 江莹. 基于平行DEA模型的我国小学教育资源配置效率分析[J]. 运筹与管理, 2021, 30(11): 60-64.
[6]	孟韬, 徐广林. 基于三阶段DEA的独角兽上市企业创新效率评价[J]. 运筹与管理, 2021, 30(10): 206-212.
[7]	沈扬, 陈克红. 产能约束下的供应商竞争[J]. 运筹与管理, 2020, 29(3): 91-98.
[8]	王清斌, 王翠萍, 肖勤飞. 基于博弈论的铁路集装箱中心站装卸作业研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2020, 29(2): 73-87.
[9]	李刚, 马羽洁, 牛冲槐. 煤炭资源型地区技术锁定效应测度研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2020, 29(12): 147-153.
[10]	冯宝军, 沈佳坤, 孙秀峰. 研究型大学财务资源两阶段配置的相对效率评价[J]. 运筹与管理, 2020, 29(10): 140-146.
[11]	俞锦涛, 王金山. 基于Archimedean三角模的犹豫直觉模糊语言信息群决策方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2019, 28(9): 27-32.
[12]	王昱, 成力为, 王晓娜. 金融功能升级与区域金融发展的动态内生俱乐部收敛[J]. 运筹与管理, 2019, 28(9): 142-156.
[13]	刘超, 傅若瑜, 李佳慧, 周文文. 基于DEA-Tobit方法的人工智能行业上市公司融资效率研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2019, 28(6): 144-152.
[14]	范德成,李盛楠. 区域高技术产业技术创新效率测度与提升路径研究——基于共享投入关联型两阶段DEA模型[J]. 运筹与管理, 2019, 28(5): 156-165.
[15]	杨德权, 杜冰竹. 基于关联网络DEA的供应链协调程度评价[J]. 运筹与管理, 2018, 27(9): 51-66.