IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jproda/v43y2015i1p75-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using ex ante output elicitation to model state-contingent technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Chambers
  • Teresa Serra
  • Spiro Stefanou

    ()

Abstract

Survey-elicited ex ante outputs are used to develop an empirical representation of an Arrow–Debreu–Savage state-contingent technology in an activity-analysis framework. An empirical test of output-cubicality is developed for that framework. We apply those tools to assess production characteristics of a sample of Catalan farmers specialized in arable crops. Results suggest that imposing nonsubstitutability between ex ante outputs results in no significant loss of information. Even though the technology appears to be output cubical, efficiency measurements based on ex post output observations do not appear to adequately represent the stochastic production environment and apparently yield downward biased technical efficiency measures. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Chambers & Teresa Serra & Spiro Stefanou, 2015. "Using ex ante output elicitation to model state-contingent technologies," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 75-83, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jproda:v:43:y:2015:i:1:p:75-83
    DOI: 10.1007/s11123-014-0385-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11123-014-0385-z
    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. Christopher O’Donnell & Robert Chambers & John Quiggin, 2010. "Efficiency analysis in the presence of uncertainty," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Chambers, Robert G., 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Valuing Agricultural Insurance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics Appendices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), August.
    3. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-168, March.
    4. C. J. O'Donnell & W. E. Griffiths, 2006. "Estimating State-Contingent Production Frontiers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 249-266.
    5. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    6. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
    7. Leopold Simar & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2006. "On Testing Equality of Distributions of Technical Efficiency Scores," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 497-522.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    9. Manski, Charles F, 1999. "Analysis of Choice Expectations in Incomplete Scenarios," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 49-66, December.
    10. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    11. Sriram Shankar & John Quiggin, 2013. "Production under uncertainty: a simulation study," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 207-215, June.
    12. Robert G. Chambers & John Quiggin, 1998. "Cost Functions and Duality for Stochastic Technologies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 288-295.
    13. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 1978. "Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 67-86, February.
    14. Jean-Paul Chavas, 2008. "A Cost Approach to Economic Analysis Under State-Contingent Production Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 435-466.
    15. Robert G. Chambers, 2007. "Valuing Agricultural Insurance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 596-606.
    16. Chambers,Robert G. & Quiggin,John, 2000. "Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521622448, April.
    17. Hung-Jen Wang, 2002. "Heteroscedasticity and Non-Monotonic Efficiency Effects of a Stochastic Frontier Model," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 241-253, November.
    18. Jean-Paul Chavas & Robert G. Chambers & Rulon D. Pope, 2010. "Production Economics and Farm Management: a Century of Contributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 356-375.
    19. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    20. Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2002. "Specification and Estimation of Production Risk, Risk Preferences and Technical Efficiency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 8-22.
    21. Antle, John M, 1983. "Testing the Stochastic Structure of Production: A Flexible Moment-based Approach," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(3), pages 192-201, July.
    22. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    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. Serra, Teresa & Chambers, Robert G. & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Measuring technical and environmental efficiency in a state-contingent technology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 706-717.
    2. Yin, Pengzhen & Sun, Jiasen & Chu, Junfei & Liang, Liang, 2016. "Evaluating the environmental efficiency of a two-stage system with undesired outputs by a DEA approach: An interest preference perspectiveAuthor-Name: Wu, Jie," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1047-1062.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    State-contingent production; Uncertainty; Inefficiency; Output cubicality; D21; D81; Q12;

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

    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:43:y:2015:i:1:p:75-83. 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.