IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jproda/v13y2000i1p7-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DEA and Activity Planning under Asymmetric Information

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Bogetoft

Abstract

The productivity analysis literature has traditionally focused on the evaluation of past performances. In this paper, we consider the post productivity analysis problem of deciding which production plans to choose in the future given information from a productivity analysis. In particular, we demonstrate that Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has an important role to play in the reallocation game following a normal productivity analysis. DEA estimates reduce the information rents an agent can extract by “claiming” high costs for the least reduced or most expanded activity. We also examine how to optimally combine DEA estimates with other information in a planning context, including preference information, ex-ante cost reports and ex-post cost data. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Bogetoft, 2000. "DEA and Activity Planning under Asymmetric Information," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 7-48, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jproda:v:13:y:2000:i:1:p:7-48
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1007812822633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1007812822633
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banker, Rajiv D., 1980. "A game theoretic approach to measuring efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 262-266, October.
    2. Melumad, Nahum D. & Reichelstein, Stefan, 1989. "Value of communication in agencies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 334-368, April.
    3. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, January.
    4. Boaz Golany, 1988. "Note---A Note on Including Ordinal Relations Among Multipliers in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(8), pages 1029-1033, August.
    5. Banker, R. D. & Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Clarke, R., 1989. "Constrained game formulations and interpretations for data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 299-308, June.
    6. Peter Bogetoft, 1997. "DEA-based yardstick competition: The optimality of best practice regulation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 73(0), pages 277-298, October.
    7. Merja Halme & Tarja Joro & Pekka Korhonen & Seppo Salo & Jyrki Wallenius, 1999. "A Value Efficiency Approach to Incorporating Preference Information in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(1), pages 103-115, January.
    8. repec:bla:joares:v:20:y:1982:i:2:p:589-603 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Myerson, Roger B, 1979. "Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 61-73, January.
    10. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    11. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1994. "The New Economics of Regulation Ten Years After," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 507-537, May.
    12. Henry Tulkens, 1993. "On FDH efficiency analysis: Some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 183-210, June.
    13. Banker, Rajiv D., 1984. "Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 35-44, July.
    14. repec:bla:joares:v:29:y:1991:i:1:p:109-128 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. 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.
    16. Bogetoft, Peter, 1995. "Incentives and productivity measurements," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1-2), pages 67-77, April.
    17. Rick Antle & Gary D. Eppen, 1985. "Capital Rationing and Organizational Slack in Capital Budgeting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 163-174, February.
    18. Peter Bogetoft, 1994. "Incentive Efficient Production Frontiers: An Agency Perspective on DEA," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 959-968, August.
    19. John Christensen, 1981. "Communication in Agencies," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 661-674, Autumn.
    20. Peter Bogetoft, 1996. "DEA on Relaxed Convexity Assumptions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 457-465, March.
    21. 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.
    22. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    23. Harris Milton & Townsend, Robert M, 1981. "Resource Allocation under Asymmetric Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 33-64, January.
    24. Agha Iqbal Ali & Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1991. "Strict vs. Weak Ordinal Relations for Multipliers in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(6), pages 733-738, June.
    25. McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John, 1988. "Multidimensional incentive compatibility and mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 335-354, December.
    26. Sappington, David, 1983. "Limited liability contracts between principal and agent," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-21, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:kap:jproda:v:13:y:2000:i:1:p:7-48. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.