IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Technical, allocative and economic efficiencies in swine production in Hawaii: a comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches

  • Sharma, Khem R.
  • Leung, PingSun
  • Zaleski, Halina M.
Registered author(s):

    Technical, allocative and economic efficiency measures are derived for a sample of swine producers in Hawaii using the parametric stochastic efficiency decomposition technique and nonparametric data envelopment analysis (DEA). Efficiency measures obtained from the two frontier approaches are compared. Firm-specific factors affecting productive efficiencies are also analyzed. Finally, swine producers' potential for reducing cost through improved efficiency is also examined. Under the specification of variable returns to scale (VRS), the mean technical, allocative and economic efficiency indices are 75.9%, 75.8% and 57.1%, respectively, for the paramettic approach and 75.9%, 80.3% and 60.3% for DEA; while for the constant returns to scale (CRS) they are 74.5%, 73.9% and 54.7%, respectively, for the parametric approach and 64.3%, 71.4% and 45.7% for DEA. Thus the results from both approaches reveal considerable inefficiencies in swine production in Hawaii. The removal of potential outliers increases the technical efficiencies in the parametric approach and allocative efficiencies in DEA, but, overall, contrary to popular belief, the results obtained from DEA are found to be more robust than those from the parametric approach. The estimated mean technical and economic efficiencies obtained from the paramettic technique are higher than those from DEA for CRS models but quite similar for VRS models, while allocative efficiencies are generally higher in DEA. However, the efficiency rankings of the sample producers based on the two approaches are highly correlated, with the highest correlation being achieved for the technical efficiency rankings under CRS. Based on mean compaiison and rank correlation analyses, the return to scale assumption is found to be crucial in assessing the similarities or differences in efficiency measures obtained from the two approaches. Analysis of the role of various firm-specific factors on productive efficiency shows that farm size has strong positive effects on efficiency levels. Similarly, farms producing market hogs are more efficient than those producing feeder pigs. Based on these results, by operating at the efficient frontier the sample swine producers would be able to reduce their production costs by 38-46% depending upon the method and returns to scale considered. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

    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/174734
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by International Association of Agricultural Economists in its journal Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists.

    Volume (Year): 20 (1999)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages:

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ags:iaaeaj:174734
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.iaae-agecon.org/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    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. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-32.
    2. Meeusen, Wim & van den Broeck, Julien, 1977. "Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 18(2), pages 435-44, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Kumbhakar, Subal C & Ghosh, Soumendra & McGuckin, J Thomas, 1991. "A Generalized Production Frontier Approach for Estimating Determinants of Inefficiency in U.S. Dairy Farms," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 9(3), pages 279-86, July.
    8. Lund, Mogens & Jacobsen, Brian H & Hansen, Lars C E, 1993. "Reducing Non-allocative Costs on Danish Dairy Farms: Application of Non-parametric Methods," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 20(3), pages 327-41.
    9. R. D. Banker & A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper, 1984. "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(9), pages 1078-1092, September.
    10. Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Evenson, Robert E., 1994. "Efficiency in agricultural production: the case of peasant farmers in eastern Paraguay," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(1), January.
    11. 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.
    12. Ray, Subhash C., 1988. "Data envelopment analysis, nondiscretionary inputs and efficiency: an alternative interpretation," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 167-176.
    13. 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.
    14. Chavas, Jean-Paul & Aliber, Michael, 1993. "An Analysis Of Economic Efficiency In Agriculture: A Nonparametric Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(01), July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaaeaj:174734. 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.