Technology adoption and farmer efficiency in multiple crops production in eastern Ethiopia: A comparison of parametric and non-parametric distance functions
This study compares the empirical performances of the parametric distance functions(PDF) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) with applications to adopters of improved cereal production technology in eastern Ethiopia. The results from both approaches revealed substantial technical inefficiencies of production among the sample farmers. Technical efficiency estimates obtained from the two approaches are positively and significantly correlated. However, the DEA approach is shown to be very sensitive to outliers as well as to the choice of orientation. The PDF results are relatively more robust. The results from the preferred PDF approach revealed that adopters of improved technology have average technical efficiencies of 79%, implying that they could potentially raise their food crop production by an average 21% through full exploitation of the potentials of improved varieties and mineral fertilizer. The results confirm that food production even under improved technology involves substantial inefficiency. The paper concludes with a discussion of potential underlying factors influencing farmer efficiency under improved technology, such as poor extension, education, credit, and input supply systems.
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.:
- 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.
- Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Dunn, Elizabeth G., 1995. "Technical Efficiency, Managerial Ability And Farmer Education In Guatemalan Corn Production: A Latent Variable Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 24(1), April.
- Abdul Wadud & Ben White, 2000. "Farm household efficiency in Bangladesh: a comparison of stochastic frontier and DEA methods," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1665-1673.
- Ferrier, Gary D. & Lovell, C. A. Knox, 1990. "Measuring cost efficiency in banking : Econometric and linear programming evidence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 229-245.
- M. Ali & M. A. Chaudhry, 1990. "Inter-Regional Farm Efficiency In Pakistan'S Punjab: A Frontier Production Function Study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 62-74.
- Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
- Hailu, Atakelty & Veeman, Terrence S., 2000. "Environmentally Sensitive Productivity Analysis of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry, 1959-1994: An Input Distance Function Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 251-274, November.
- Coelli, Tim & Perelman, Sergio, 1999. "A comparison of parametric and non-parametric distance functions: With application to European railways," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 326-339, September.
- Drake, Leigh & Weyman-Jones, Thomas G, 1996. "Productive and Allocative Inefficiencies in U.K. Building Societies: A Comparison of Non-parametric and Stochastic Frontier Techniques," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 64(1), pages 22-37, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aergaa:44089. 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.