IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v137y2002i1p218-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmark selection: An axiomatic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Hougaard, Jens Leth
  • Tvede, Mich

Abstract

Within a production theoretic framework, this paper considers an axiomatic approach to benchmark selection. It is shown that two simple and weak axioms: efficiency and comprehensive monotonicity characterize a natural family of benchmarks which typically becomes unique. Further axioms are added in order to obtain a unique selection.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hougaard, Jens Leth & Tvede, Mich, 2002. "Benchmark selection: An axiomatic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 218-228, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:137:y:2002:i:1:p:218-228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(01)00080-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Christensen, Flemming & Hougaard, Jens Leth & Keiding, Hans, 1999. "An axiomatic characterization of efficiency indices," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 33-37, April.
    2. Berger, Allen N. & Humphrey, David B., 1997. "Efficiency of financial institutions: International survey and directions for future research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 175-212, April.
    3. 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.
    4. R. Allen & A. Athanassopoulos & R.G. Dyson & E. Thanassoulis, 1997. "Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 73(0), pages 13-34, October.
    5. Leibenstein, Harvey & Maital, Shlomo, 1994. "The organizational foundations of X-inefficiency: A game-theoretic interpretation of Argyris' model of organizational learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 251-268, May.
    6. Post, Thierry & Spronk, Jaap, 1999. "Performance benchmarking using interactive data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 472-487, June.
    7. Jens Hougaard & Hans Keiding, 1998. "On the Functional Form of an Efficiency Index," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 103-111, March.
    8. Bergstrom, Theodore C., 1975. "Maximal elements of acyclic relations on compact sets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 403-404, June.
    9. E. Thanassoulis & R. Allen, 1998. "Simulating Weights Restrictions in Data Envelopment Analysis by Means of Unobserved DMUs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 586-594, April.
    10. Walker, Mark, 1977. "On the existence of maximal elements," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 470-474, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thanassoulis, Emmanuel & Kortelainen, Mika & Allen, Rachel, 2012. "Improving envelopment in Data Envelopment Analysis under variable returns to scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(1), pages 175-185.
    2. Asmild, Mette & Zhu, Minyan, 2016. "Controlling for the use of extreme weights in bank efficiency assessments during the financial crisis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 999-1015.
    3. Soteriou, Andreas C. & Zenios, Stavros A., 1999. "Using data envelopment analysis for costing bank products," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 234-248, April.
    4. M. Soleimani-damaneh & M. Zarepisheh, 2009. "Linear transformations to decrease computational requirements of solving some known linear programming models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 37-43, November.
    5. D L Tracy & B Chen, 2005. "A generalized model for weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 390-396, April.
    6. Korhonen, Pekka & Tainio, Risto & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2001. "Value efficiency analysis of academic research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 121-132, April.
    7. William W. Cooper & Kyung Sam Park & Gang Yu, 2001. "An Illustrative Application of Idea (Imprecise Data Envelopment Analysis) to a Korean Mobile Telecommunication Company," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 807-820, December.
    8. V V Podinovski, 2004. "Production trade-offs and weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    9. Yang, Jian-Bo & Wong, Brandon Y.H. & Xu, Dong-Ling & Stewart, Theodor J., 2009. "Integrating DEA-oriented performance assessment and target setting using interactive MOLP methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 205-222, May.
    10. V V Podinovski, 2005. "The explicit role of weight bounds in models of data envelopment analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(12), pages 1408-1418, December.
    11. V V Podinovski, 2007. "Improving data envelopment analysis by the use of production trade-offs," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(10), pages 1261-1270, October.
    12. Victor Podinovski & Emmanuel Thanassoulis, 2007. "Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: some practical suggestions," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 117-126, October.
    13. Cooper, William W. & Ruiz, Jose L. & Sirvent, Inmaculada, 2007. "Choosing weights from alternative optimal solutions of dual multiplier models in DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(1), pages 443-458, July.
    14. Halme, Merja & Korhonen, Pekka, 2000. "Restricting weights in value efficiency analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 175-188, October.
    15. Maria Portela & Emmanuel Thanassoulis, 2006. "Zero weights and non-zero slacks: Different solutions to the same problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 129-147, July.
    16. Cook, Wade D. & Seiford, Larry M., 2009. "Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Mojtaba Ghiyasi & Jens Leth Hougaard, 2014. "Ranking Production Units According to Marginal Efficiency Contribution," MSAP Working Paper Series 04_2014, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Krivonozhko, Vladimir E. & Førsund, Finn R. & Lychev, Andrey V., 2012. "Identifying Suspicious Efficient Units in DEA Models," Memorandum 30/2012, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    19. Lampe, Hannes W. & Hilgers, Dennis, 2015. "Trajectories of efficiency measurement: A bibliometric analysis of DEA and SFA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 1-21.
    20. Baris Yilmaz & Mehmet Yurdusev & Nilgun Harmancioglu, 2009. "The Assessment of Irrigation Efficiency in Buyuk Menderes Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(6), pages 1081-1095, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • D2 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • M2 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics

    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:eee:ejores:v:137:y:2002:i:1:p:218-228. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.