This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Explaining Cost Efficiency of Scottish Farms: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Revoredo Giha, Cesar L.
Milne, Catherine E.
Leat, Philip M.K.
Cho, Woong Je

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

In this paper the cost efficiency of Scottish farms is determined, variables that explain the relative cost efficiency by farm type are identified and implications discussed. A cost efficiency approach was selected as it can deal with farms producing multiple outputs (in contrast to production frontiers), and second because it can accommodate output constraints imposed by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). To estimate the stochastic cost frontier, a generalised multi-product translog cost function was estimated for five farm types: dairy, cereals and general cropping, cattle and sheep, specialist sheep and mixed farms. Eight farm outputs and four inputs were considered. The data for the estimation were drawn from the Farm Accounts Scheme (FAS) survey for the period 1997-2004, which allowed the construction of an unbalanced panel dataset for 358 farms. Cost efficiency was measured as a fixed effect term and this was used to construct an indicator of relative cost efficiency by farm type. Further analysis, to explain the efficiency results, indicated the presence of important farm size and regional effects. However, other variables used in the analysis, whilst statistically significant, did not produce a consistent effect across the different farm types.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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/46001
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Scottish Agricultural College, Land Economy Research Group in its series Working Papers with number 46001.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:saclwp:46001

Contact details of provider:
Postal: King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Web page: http://www.sac.ac.uk/research/lee/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords: Stochastic cost frontier analysis; cost efficiency; Scottish farms; Common Agricultural Policy.;

Other versions of this item:

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.:
  1. Allen N. Berger & Loretta J. Mester, 1997. "Inside the Black Box: What Explains Differences in the Efficiencies of Financial Institutions?," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-04, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Tretheway, Michael W, 1980. "Flexible Cost Functions for Multiproduct Firms," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(3), pages 477-81, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Santarossa, John M., 2003. "Technical And Financial Sustainability In Scottish Agriculture," Miscellaneous Papers 11829, Agecon Search. [Downloadable!]
  4. Balk, Bert M., 1997. "The decomposition of cost efficiency and the canonical form of cost function and cost share equations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 45-51, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Atkinson, Scott E & Cornwell, Christopher, 1994. "Parametric Estimation of Technical and Allocative Inefficiency with Panel Data," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(1), pages 231-43, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Catherine J. Morrison Paul & Warren E. Johnston & Gerald A. G. Frengley, 2000. "Efficiency in New Zealand Sheep and Beef Farming: The Impacts of Regulatory Reform," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(2), pages 325-337, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Kopp, Raymond J. & Diewert, W. Erwin, 1982. "The decomposition of frontier cost function deviations into measures of technical and allocative efficiency," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 319-331, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Paul W. Bauer, 1988. "Decomposing TFP growth in the presence of cost inefficiency, nonconstant returns to scale, and technological progress," Working Paper 8813, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. [Downloadable!]
  9. Kumbhakar, Subal C., 1997. "Modeling allocative inefficiency in a translog cost function and cost share equations: An exact relationship," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 351-356. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Atkinson, Scott E. & Cornwell, Christopher, 1993. "Measuring technical efficiency with panel data : A dual approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 257-261, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You too can volunteer for RePEc, for example by providing information about publications in your institution.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-26.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.