A Meta-Analysis of Technical Efficiency in Farming: A Multi-Country Perspective
AbstractThe objective of this study is to undertake a meta-analysis seeking to explain the variation in average technical efficiency focusing on the agricultural sector. For this purpose, a meta-analysis of 126 technical efficiency studies on the agricultural sector of developing and developed countries was undertaken. In addition, the study contributes to cross-country productivity literature because the existing body of work in this area typically uses aggregate (i.e., national) level data to estimate total factor productivity and has ignored the technical efficiency component of productivity. The econometric results suggest that stochastic frontier models generate higher mean technical efficiency estimates than deterministic models, while parametric frontier models yield lower estimates than nonparametric. The difference between parametric and non-parametric frontiers is reduced when the translog specification is used. Also, frontier models using cross-sectional data produce lower estimates than those based on panel data. The econometric results also suggest that low-income countries (LICs) present a lower mean technical efficiency than high-income countries (HICs). A more detailed analysis reveals that Western European countries and Australia present, on average, the highest levels of mean technical efficiency among all regions after accounting for some methodological features of the studies. Eastern European countries exhibit the lowest estimate followed by Asian and African countries, while studies from Latin America and Caribbean countries, and from North American countries are in an intermediate position.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by International Farm Management Association in its series 13th Congress, Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 7-12, 2002 with number 7018.
Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
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.:
- Tim J. Coelli, 1995.
"Recent Developments In Frontier Modelling And Efficiency Measurement,"
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 219-245, December.
- Coelli, Tim J., 1995. "Recent Developments In Frontier Modelling And Efficiency Measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(03), December.
- Coelli, T. J., 1995. "Recent Developments in Frontier Modelling and Efficiency Measurement," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148798, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2001. "Estimation of Profit Functions When Profit Is Not Maximum," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 1-19.
- Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Pinheiro, Antonio E., 1993. "Efficiency Analysis Of Developing Country Agriculture: A Review Of The Frontier Function Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(1), April.
- Battese, George E., 1992. "Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 7(3-4), pages 185-208, October.
- Schmidt, Peter & Sickles, Robin C, 1984. "Production Frontiers and Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(4), pages 367-74, October.
- Phillips, Joseph M, 1994. "Farmer Education and Farmer Efficiency: A Meta-Analysis," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(1), pages 149-65, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.