The Relative Efficiencies of Canadian Universities: A DEA Perspective
The results of using data envelopment analysis (DEA) to assess the relative efficiency of 45 Canadian universities are reported. Outcomes are obtained from nine different specifications of inputs and outputs. The relative efficiencies are quite consistent across the alternative specifications. A subset of universities - including universities from each of three categories (comprehensive with medical school, comprehensive without medical school, and primarily undergraduate) - are regularly found efficient and a subset quite inefficient but, overall and for most universities, the efficiency scores are relatively high. Simulation of the recent 20-percent cut in provincial grants to the Alberta universities illustrates how potential efficiency improvements (as implied and measured by this methodology) might be realized but it also illustrates certain limitations. Regression analysis is used in an effort to identify further determinants of efficiency. While there are limitations to the methodology and the available (especially output) measures which makes the specific efficiency outcomes tentative, this analysis provides insight to university productivity in Canada and its analysis.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 24 (1998)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://economics.ca/cpp/
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.utpjournals.com/cpp/ Email: |
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.:
- Cohn, Elchanan & Rhine, Sherrie L W & Santos, Maria C, 1989. "Institutions of Higher Education as Multi-product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(2), pages 284-90, May.
- Valdmanis, Vivian, 1992. "Sensitivity analysis for DEA models : An empirical example using public vs. NFP hospitals," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 185-205, July.
- Nikias Sarafoglou & Kingsley E. Haynes, 1996. "University productivity in Sweden: a demonstration and explanatory analysis for economics and business programs," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 285-304.
- Seiford, Lawrence M. & Thrall, Robert M., 1990. "Recent developments in DEA : The mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 7-38.
- DE BORGER, Bruno & KERSTENS, Kristiaan, 1994.
"Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: A comparative analysis of FDH, DEA and econometric approaches,"
SESO Working Papers
1994002, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
- De Borger, Bruno & Kerstens, Kristiaan, 1996. "Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: A comparative analysis of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 145-170, April.
- Johnes, Geraint, 1992. "Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Survey of Recent Work," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 19-34, Summer.
- Johnes, Jill & Johnes, Geraint, 1995. "Research funding and performance in U.K. University Departments of Economics: A frontier analysis," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 301-314, September.
- Curry, B & George, K D, 1983. "Industrial Concentration: A Survey," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 203-55, March.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:24:y:1998:i:4:p:485-511. 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: (Prof. Werner Antweiler)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.