IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

EU farms’ technical efficiency and productivity change in 1990 – 2006

  • Bakucs, Lajos Zoltan
  • Ferto, Imre
  • Fogarasi, Jozsef
  • Latruffe, Laure
  • Desjeux, Yann
  • Matveev, Eduard
  • Marongiu, Sonia
  • Dolman, Mark
  • Soboh, Rafat

In this paper we analyse and compare various efficiency indicators for a number of European Union (EU) countries: Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and Sweden. The availability of long period datasets between 1990 and 2006, allow us to concentrate on the long time trends in technical efficiency especially in Old Member States. This study is the first which may provide a comprehensive overview on the development in farm level efficiency across eight European countries. Our main results are the following. Generally, all countries have relatively high levels of mean technical efficiency ranging from 0.72 to 0.92 for both field crops and dairy farms. Interestingly the majority of countries have better performance in dairy sectors in terms of higher levels of mean efficiency than in field crop production. A slightly decreasing trend however may be observed for all countries. Technical Efficiency estimates are largely in line with those obtained by previous studies. Stability analysis revealed that in average 60% of farms maintain their efficiency ranking in two consecutive years, whilst 20% improve and 20% worsen their positions for all countries. However, these ratios slightly fluctuate around these values for one year to next year. Mobility analysis ranks countries according to the mobility of SFA scores within the distribution. Farms in New Member States are more mobile than those in EU15. Total productivity changes are analysed in two steps. First, we do not find a definite trend in total factor productivity changes. Second, we address the question whether total factor productivity changes converge or diverge over time. Using panel unit root tests our estimations reveal a convergence of productivity across old EU member countries during analysed period. Finally, we decompose the total factor productivity changes into its main elements. Field crop farm indicators generally present significantly higher volatility than dairy farms. Random effect panel regression of Total Factor Productivity Change on its components shows Technological Change as being the significant positive driver for crop farms, whilst Technical Efficiency Change followed by Technological Change are the most important for dairy farms. In addition we do not find significant impacts of CAP reforms in 1992 and 2000 on total productivity changes.

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.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/108773
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Agricultural Economics Society in its series 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK with number 108773.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Apr 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc11:108773
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.aes.ac.uk/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Shorrocks, A F, 1978. "The Measurement of Mobility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(5), pages 1013-24, September.
  2. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
  3. Laure Latruffe & Hervé Guyomard & Chantal Le Mouël, 2009. "The role of public subsidies on farms’ managerial efficiency: An application of a five-stage approach to France," Working Papers SMART - LERECO 09-05, INRA UMR SMART.
  4. Coelli, Tim J. & Perelman, Sergio & Van Lierde, Dirk, 2006. "CAP Reforms and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Belgian Agriculture: A Malmquist Index Approach," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25472, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  5. Kodde, David A & Palm, Franz C, 1986. "Wald Criteria for Jointly Testing Equality and Inequality Restriction s," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(5), pages 1243-48, September.
  6. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
  7. Boris Bravo-Ureta & Daniel Solís & Víctor Moreira López & José Maripani & Abdourahmane Thiam & Teodoro Rivas, 2007. "Technical efficiency in farming: a meta-regression analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 57-72, February.
  8. Karin Larsén, 2010. "Effects of machinery-sharing arrangements on farm efficiency: evidence from Sweden," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 497-506, 09.
  9. Carlos San Juan Mesonada & Stefan Sperlich & Carmen Murillo & Werner Kleinhans, 2005. "Efficiency, subsidies and environmental adaptation of animal farming under CAP," Others 0512015, EconWPA.
  10. Xueqin Zhu & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2010. "Impact of CAP Subsidies on Technical Efficiency of Crop Farms in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 545-564.
  11. Geweke, John & Marshall, Robert C & Zarkin, Gary A, 1986. "Mobility Indices in Continuous Time Markov Chains," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1407-23, November.
  12. Laure Latruffe & Jozsef Fogarasi, 2009. "Farm performance and support in Central and Western Europe: A comparison of Hungary and France," Working Papers SMART - LERECO 09-07, INRA UMR SMART.
  13. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. " A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-52, Special I.
  14. Lajos Zoltan Bakucs & Laure Latruffe & Imre Fertő & Jozsef Fogarasi, 2010. "The impact of EU accession on farms' technical efficiency in Hungary," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 165-175.
  15. Levin, Andrew & Lin, Chien-Fu & James Chu, Chia-Shang, 2002. "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-24, May.
  16. Caudill, Steven B & Ford, Jon M & Gropper, Daniel M, 1995. "Frontier Estimation and Firm-Specific Inefficiency Measures in the Presence of Heteroscedasticity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 105-11, January.
  17. Bernhard Br�mmer & Thomas Glauben & Geert Thijssen, 2002. "Decomposition of Productivity Growth Using Distance Functions: The Case of Dairy Farms in Three European Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(3), pages 628-644.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aesc11:108773. 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: (AgEcon Search)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.