IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v20y1999i1p23-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Khem R. Sharma
  • PingSun Leung
  • Halina M. Zaleski

Abstract

Technical, allocative and economic efficiency measures arc 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 frontiei 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 parametric 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 anil 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 parametric 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 comparison 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 arc‐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.

Suggested Citation

  • Khem R. Sharma & PingSun Leung & Halina M. Zaleski, 1999. "Technical, allocative and economic efficiencies in swine production in Hawaii: a comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(1), pages 23-35, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:20:y:1999:i:1:p:23-35
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.1999.tb00548.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1999.tb00548.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1999.tb00548.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:20:y:1999:i:1:p:23-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.