Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Explaining Production Heterogeneity By Contextual Environments: Two-Stage DEA Application to Technical Change Measurement

Contents:

Author Info

  • Minegishi, Kota
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    One of the most important objectives in eciency analysis is to investigate the rela- tionships between production decisions and their contextual environments like geographical regions, production time periods, modes of production, or policies and regulations. Using the measurement of technical change as a template, the study presents a general framework to better understand varying production decisions under di erent time periods by showing how such production heterogeneity can be attributable to the di erences in time-speci c technological frontiers at industry level and the di erences in the prevalence of technical ineciency at producer level. In DEA, a leading non/semi-parametric frontier estimation method, these di erences can be analyzed through decomposing Malmquist produc- tivity index (MPI) into technical change (TC) and technical eciency change (TEC) respectively. The decomposition approach falls into the non-Hicks-neutral TC estimation as the mean distance measures among time-speci c frontiers, which is generally less restrictive than the Hicks-neutral TC estimation as an intertemporal-shift component of the frontier speci cation under xed substitution patterns across time periods. The method is more generally applicable to the comparisons between any two di erent contextual environments, including before and after a policy intervention, by which a sample can be partitioned. To make the existing method more empirically accessible and appealing, the study pro- poses a regression-based MPI decomposition that overcomes its limitations, or the need of balanced panel data and the lack of control for potentially confounding non-production factors. The proposed methodology is demonstrated with an empirical application using data from the Schedule F Tax returns of 62 dairy farmers in Maryland during 1995-2009. For conventional, con nement dairy operations, the preliminary results under preferred speci cations show a 26.4%/decade expansion in technological fron- tier, accompanied by a 6.3%/decade decline in the mean technical eciency levels (i.e. increases in the prevalance of technical ineciencies). The indicators for farm ownership and o -farm income are associated with a 4.5% increase and a 5.8% decrease in technical eciency respectively. Higher sea- sonal rainfalls and temperatures, except for winter rainfall and summer temperature, are associated with larger technical feasibility in a given year.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/150289
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. with number 150289.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150289

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
    Phone: (414) 918-3190
    Fax: (414) 276-3349
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.aaea.org
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Production Economics; Productivity Analysis;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Badin, Luiza & Daraio, Cinzia & Simar, Léopold, 2010. "Optimal bandwidth selection for conditional efficiency measures: A data-driven approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(2), pages 633-640, March.
    2. Park, Byeong U. & Simar, Léopold & Zelenyuk, Valentin, 2008. "Local likelihood estimation of truncated regression and its partial derivatives: Theory and application," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 185-198, September.
    3. PARK, Byeong U. & SICKLES, Robin C. & SIMAR, Léopold, 1996. "Stochastic Panel Frontiers : A Semiparametric Approach," CORE Discussion Papers 1996038, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. Fan, Yanqin & Li, Qi & Weersink, Alfons, 1996. "Semiparametric Estimation of Stochastic Production Frontier Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(4), pages 460-68, October.
    5. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    6. Zhuo Chen & Shunfeng Song, 2006. "Efficiency and Technology Gap in China's Agriculture: A Regional META-Frontier Analysis," Working Papers 06-005, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Economics & University of Nevada, Reno , Department of Resource Economics.
    7. Jerzmanowski, Michal, 2007. "Total factor productivity differences: Appropriate technology vs. efficiency," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(8), pages 2080-2110, November.
    8. Cinzia Daraio & Léopold Simar, 2007. "Conditional nonparametric frontier models for convex and nonconvex technologies: a unifying approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 13-32, October.
    9. Léopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2011. "Inference by the m out of n bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 33-53, August.
    10. Florens, Jean-Pierre & Simar, Leopold, 2005. "Parametric approximations of nonparametric frontiers," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 91-116, January.
    11. Mark Doms & Eric J. Bartelsman, 2000. "Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September.
    12. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
    13. Cazals, Catherine & Florens, Jean-Pierre & Simar, Leopold, 2002. "Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-25, January.
    14. Ku-Hsieh Chen & Hao-Yen Yang, 2011. "A cross-country comparison of productivity growth using the generalised metafrontier Malmquist productivity index: with application to banking industries in Taiwan and China," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 197-212, June.
    15. Chad Syverson, 2010. "What Determines Productivity?," NBER Working Papers 15712, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Simar, Léopold & Vanhems, Anne & Wilson, Paul W., 2012. "Statistical inference for DEA estimators of directional distances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 853-864.
    17. Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Park, Byeong U. & Simar, Leopold & Tsionas, Efthymios G., 2007. "Nonparametric stochastic frontiers: A local maximum likelihood approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 1-27, March.
    18. Simar, Léopold & Vanhems, Anne, 2012. "Probabilistic characterization of directional distances and their robust versions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(2), pages 342-354.
    19. Chambers Robert G. & Fare Rolf, 1994. "Hicks' Neutrality and Trade Biased Growth: A Taxonomy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 554-567, December.
    20. Léopold Simar & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2011. "Stochastic FDH/DEA estimators for frontier analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-20, August.
    21. Shawna Grosskopf, 2003. "Some Remarks on Productivity and its Decompositions," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 459-474, November.
    22. Timo Kuosmanen, 2008. "Representation theorem for convex nonparametric least squares," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 11(2), pages 308-325, 07.
    23. Caudill, Steven B. & Ford, Jon M., 1993. "Biases in frontier estimation due to heteroscedasticity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 17-20.
    24. Timo Kuosmanen & Mika Kortelainen, 2012. "Stochastic non-smooth envelopment of data: semi-parametric frontier estimation subject to shape constraints," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 11-28, August.
    25. George E. Battese & D. S. Prasada Rao, 2002. "Technology Gap, Efficiency, and a Stochastic Metafrontier Function," International Journal of Business and Economics, College of Business, and College of Finance, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 1(2), pages 87-93, August.
    26. Greene, William H., 1980. "Maximum likelihood estimation of econometric frontier functions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 27-56, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.