A Metafrontier Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Selected European Agricultures
Technical efficiency refers to the situation where it is impossible for a firm to produce, with the given know-how, (1) a larger output from the same inputs or (2) the same output with less of one or more inputs without increasing the amount of other inputs. In practice, the interest is on the relative position in terms of efficiency of a particular firm with respect to others. Therefore, technical efficiency is characterised by the relationship between observed production and some ideal or potential production (Greene, 1993). Although the beginning of the efficiency work can be traced to the 1950s (Farrell, 1957), there have been a growing interest on its use in benchmarking performance, predominantly as a means of identifying best practice and improving the efficiency of resource use within the agricultural industry (e.g., Defra 2004, SAC 2009). This paper deals with the estimation of technical efficiency for the agricultural sectors in several European countries and moreover, it aims to compare the efficiency amongst them using a metafrontier analysis. The use of this type of analysis is justified because a frontier, which represents the best available technology within a particular region/country cannot be strictly compared across other regions/countries, unless they operate under the same production set. The metafrontier analysis has been developed in a number of studies (Battese and Rao, 2002; Nkamleu et al., 2006; Chen and Song, 2006; O‟Donnell et al., 2008.) The metafrontier analysis in this paper, which uses data from the Farm Accountancy data Network (FADN), was focused on four farm types: two specialised farming types (i.e., specialist cereals, oilseed and protein crops and specialist dairying) and two more mixed farming sets (i.e., general field cropping and mixed farms), and was applied to a total of 11 countries namely Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK. For most of the countries the information was available from 1995 until 2007, excepting Hungary and Poland, for which it was available only since 2004. Also note that not all the farm types were available for all the countries. The structure of the paper is as follows: it starts presenting an overview of the metafrontier analysis used to compare technical efficiency amongst the European countries. It is followed by the empirical work, which comprises a description of the data used, the estimation and discussion of the results. Finally we present conclusions.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG|
Web page: http://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120037/land_economy_and_environment
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.:
- C.J. O'Donnell & W.E. Griffiths, 2004.
"Estimating State-Contingent Production Frontiers,"
Department of Economics - Working Papers Series
911, The University of Melbourne.
- Christopher O’Donnell & D. Rao & George Battese, 2008. "Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 231-255, March.
- Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
- Víctor Moreira & Boris Bravo-Ureta, 2010. "Technical efficiency and metatechnology ratios for dairy farms in three southern cone countries: a stochastic meta-frontier model," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 33-45, February.
- Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:srlewp:109412. 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.