IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/manchs/v79y2011i4p765-775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Hicks–Moorsteen Productivity Index Satisfies The Determinateness Axiom

Author

Listed:
  • WALTER BRIEC
  • KRISTIAAN KERSTENS

Abstract

There are two total factor productivity indices available in the literature based on a primal notion of the technology. In a ratio tradition, these are the Malmquist and the HicksMoorsteen productivity indices. In a difference perspective, the Luenberger and Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicators are based upon a sightly different concept. The purpose of this note is to establish that -in contrast to the Malmquist index- the Hicks-Moorsteen type of productivity index (as well as its difference-based counterpart) is well-defined and satisfies the determinateness property, since the underlying distance functions are always feasible.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Walter Briec & Kristiaan Kerstens, 2011. "The Hicks–Moorsteen Productivity Index Satisfies The Determinateness Axiom," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(4), pages 765-775, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:manchs:v:79:y:2011:i:4:p:765-775
    DOI: j.1467-9957.2010.02169.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2010.02169.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1467-9957.2010.02169.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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bjurek, Hans, 1996. " The Malmquist Total Factor Productivity Index," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 98(2), pages 303-313, June.
    2. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1997. " Biased Technical Change and the Malmquist Productivity Index," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(1), pages 119-127, March.
    3. Nemoto, Jiro & Goto, Mika, 2005. "Productivity, efficiency, scale economies and technical change: A new decomposition analysis of TFP applied to the Japanese prefectures," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 617-634, December.
    4. Walter Briec & Kristiaan Kerstens, 2004. "A Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicator: its relation to the Hicks-Moorsteen productivity index and the Luenberger productivity indicator," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(4), pages 925-939, May.
    5. Richard H. Moorsteen, 1961. "On Measuring Productive Potential and Relative Efficiency," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(3), pages 451-467.
    6. Antonio Estache & Sergio Perelman & Lourdes Trujillo, 2007. "Measuring Quantity‐Quality Trade‐Offs In Regulation: The Brazilian Freight Railways Case," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(1), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Ouellette, Pierre & Vierstraete, Valerie, 2004. "Technological change and efficiency in the presence of quasi-fixed inputs: A DEA application to the hospital sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(3), pages 755-763, May.
    8. Fare, Rolf & Knox Lovell, C. A., 1978. "Measuring the technical efficiency of production," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 150-162, October.
    9. Robert G. Chambers, 2002. "Exact nonradial input, output, and productivity measurement," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(4), pages 751-765.
    10. Samuelson, Paul A & Swamy, S, 1974. "Invariant Economic Index Numbers and Canonical Duality: Survey and Synthesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(4), pages 566-593, September.
    11. John R. Hicks, 1961. "The Measurement of Capital in Relation to the Measurement of Other Economic Aggregates," International Economic Association Series, in: D. C. Hague (ed.), The Theory of Capital, chapter 0, pages 18-31, Palgrave Macmillan.
    12. Nishimizu, Mieko & Page, John M, Jr, 1982. "Total Factor Productivity Growth, Technological Progress and Technical Efficiency Change: Dimensions of Productivity Change in Yugoslavia, 1965-78," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 920-936, December.
    13. F. A. Lutz, 1961. "The Theory of Capital," International Economic Association Series, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-08452-4 edited by D. C. Hague, December.
    14. Jiro Nemoto & Mika Goto, 2005. "Productivity, Efficiency, Scale Economies and Technical Change: A New Decomposition Analysis," NBER Working Papers 11373, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. J. Colin Glass & Donal G. McKillop, 2000. "A Post Deregulation Analysis of the Sources of Productivity Growth in UK Building Societies," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 68(3), pages 360-385, June.
    16. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Roos, Pontus, 1996. "On two definitions of productivity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 269-274, December.
    17. W. Erwin Diewert, 2005. "Index Number Theory Using Differences Rather Than Ratios," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 311-360, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Enrique Gilles & Javier Deaza & Alejandro Vivas, 2016. "Productivity measurements for three countries of the Pacific Alliance and South Korea, 2008-2012," Documentos de Trabajo EAN 15236, Universidad EAN.
    2. Diogo Cunha Ferreira & Rui Cunha Marques, 2016. "Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen Productivity Indexes for Clusters Performance Evaluation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 1015-1053, September.
    3. Christian Stetter & Johannes Sauer, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Eco-Performance at Farm Level: A Parametric Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 617-647, March.
    4. Aparicio, Juan & López-Torres, Laura & Santín, Daniel, 2018. "Economic crisis and public education. A productivity analysis using a Hicks-Moorsteen index," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 34-44.
    5. Mocholi-Arce, Manuel & Sala-Garrido, Ramon & Molinos-Senante, Maria & Maziotis, Alexandros, 2021. "Water company productivity change: A disaggregated approach accounting for changes in inputs and outputs," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Jin, Qianying & Kerstens, Kristiaan & Van de Woestyne, Ignace, 2020. "Metafrontier productivity indices: Questioning the common convexification strategy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(2), pages 737-747.
    7. Diewert, Erwin & Fox, Kevin J., 2014. "Decomposing Bjurek Productivity Indexes into Explanatory Factors," Economics working papers erwin_diewert-2014-32, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 30 Jun 2014.
    8. Briec, Walter & Kerstens, Kristiaan & Prior, Diego & Van de Woestyne, Ignace, 2018. "Testing general and special Färe-Primont indices: A proposal for public and private sector synthetic indices of European regional expenditures and tourism," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 756-768.
    9. Andrew Maredza & Sylvanus Ikhide, 2013. "The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Efficiency and Productivity of the Banking System in South Africa," Working Papers 328, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    10. Tomas Balezentis & Kristiaan Kerstens & Zhiyang Shen, 2022. "Economic and Environmental Decomposition of Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen Total Factor Productivity Indicator: Empirical Analysis of Chinese Textile Firms With a Focus on Reporting Infeasibilities and Qu," Post-Print hal-03833245, HAL.
    11. Kerstens, Kristiaan & Van de Woestyne, Ignace, 2014. "Comparing Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indices: Exploring the impact of unbalanced vs. balanced panel data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 749-758.
    12. Zhiyang Shen & Kristiaan Kerstens & Tomas Baležentis, 2023. "An environmental Luenberger–Hicks–Moorsteen total factor productivity indicator: empirical analysis considering undesirable outputs either as inputs or outputs, and attention for infeasibilities," Post-Print hal-04273656, HAL.
    13. Diewert, W. Erwin & Fox, Kevin J., 2017. "Decomposing productivity indexes into explanatory factors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(1), pages 275-291.
    14. Mocholi-Arce, Manuel & Sala-Garrido, Ramon & Molinos-Senante, Maria & Maziotis, Alexandros, 2023. "Profit productivity change in the English and Welsh water sector: Impact of the price reviews," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    15. Briec, Walter & Dumas, Audrey & Stenger, Agathe, 2013. "On the standard achievement and well-being indexes and their relation to the Hicks–Moorsteen productivity index," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 900-909.
    16. C.J. O'Donnell, 2011. "The Sources of Productivity Change in the Manufacturing Sectors of the U.S. Economy," CEPA Working Papers Series WP072011, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. C.J. O'Donnell, 2011. "The Sources of Productivity Change in the Manufacturing Sectors of the U.S. Economy," CEPA Working Papers Series WP072011, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    2. Kerstens, Kristiaan & Van de Woestyne, Ignace, 2014. "Comparing Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indices: Exploring the impact of unbalanced vs. balanced panel data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 749-758.
    3. Diewert, W. Erwin & Fox, Kevin J., 2017. "Decomposing productivity indexes into explanatory factors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(1), pages 275-291.
    4. Arnaud Abad & Rabaozafy Louisa Andriamasy & Walter Briec, 2018. "Surplus measures and luenberger Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indicator," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 279-308, November.
    5. Aparicio, Juan & López-Torres, Laura & Santín, Daniel, 2018. "Economic crisis and public education. A productivity analysis using a Hicks-Moorsteen index," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 34-44.
    6. W. Erwin Diewert & Kevin J. Fox, 2014. "Decomposing Bjurek Productivity Indexes into Explanatory Factors," Discussion Papers 2014-33, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    7. Kristiaan Kerstens & Jafar Sadeghi & Ignace Van de Woestyne & Linjia Zhang, 2022. "Malmquist productivity indices and plant capacity utilisation: new proposals and empirical application," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(1), pages 221-250, August.
    8. Rolf Färe & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2021. "On aggregation of multi-factor productivity indexes," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 107-133, April.
    9. Diogo Cunha Ferreira & Rui Cunha Marques, 2016. "Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen Productivity Indexes for Clusters Performance Evaluation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 1015-1053, September.
    10. Färe, Rolf & Mizobuchi, Hideyuki & Zelenyuk, Valentin, 2021. "Hicks neutrality and homotheticity in technologies with multiple inputs and multiple outputs," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    11. Valentin Zelenyuk, 2023. "Productivity analysis: roots, foundations, trends and perspectives," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 229-247, December.
    12. Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2017. "A superlative index number formula for the Hicks-Moorsteen productivity index," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 167-178, December.
    13. Pastor, Jesus T. & Lovell, C.A. Knox & Aparicio, Juan, 2020. "Defining a new graph inefficiency measure for the proportional directional distance function and introducing a new Malmquist productivity index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(1), pages 222-230.
    14. W. Briec & K. Kerstens, 2009. "Infeasibility and Directional Distance Functions with Application to the Determinateness of the Luenberger Productivity Indicator," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 55-73, April.
    15. Antonio Martínez González & Nuria Rueda López, 2013. "A Productivity And Efficiency Analysis Of The Security And Defence Technological And Industrial Base In Spain," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 147-171, April.
    16. Walter Briec & Kristiaan Kerstens & Nicolas Peypoch, 2012. "Exact Relations Between Four Definitions Of Productivity Indices And Indicators," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 265-274, April.
    17. Briec, Walter & Dumas, Audrey & Stenger, Agathe, 2013. "On the standard achievement and well-being indexes and their relation to the Hicks–Moorsteen productivity index," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 900-909.
    18. Briec, Walter & Dumas, Audrey & Kerstens, Kristiaan & Stenger, Agathe, 2022. "Generalised commensurability properties of efficiency measures: Implications for productivity indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1481-1492.
    19. A. Abad & P. Ravelojaona, 2017. "Exponential environmental productivity index and indicators," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 147-166, December.
    20. Nguepi Tsafack Elvis & Hua Cheng & Buregeya Ingabire Providence, 2022. "The Illustrative Understanding on the Informal Sector and Its Influence in Firm Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): Evidence from Cameroon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C43 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Index Numbers and Aggregation
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity

    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:manchs:v:79:y:2011:i:4:p:765-775. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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/semanuk.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.