IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00907943.html

Comparing Malmquist and Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indices : exploring the impact of unbalanced vs. balanced panel data

Author

Listed:
  • K. Kerstens

    (LEM - Lille - Economie et Management - Université de Lille, Sciences et Technologies - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • I. van de Woestyne

Abstract

We explore the effect of balancing unbalanced panel data when estimating primal productivity indices using non-parametric frontier estimators. First, we list a series of pseudo-solutions aimed at making an unbalanced panel balanced. Then, we discuss some intermediate solutions (e.g., balancing 2-years by 2years). Furthermore, we link this problem with a variety of literatures on infeasibilities, statistical inference of non-parametric frontier estimators, and the index theory literature focusing on the dynamics of entry and exit in industries. We then empirically illustrate these issues comparing both Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indices on two data sets. In particular, we test for the differences in distribution when comparing balanced and unbalanced results for a given index and when comparing Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indices for a given type of data set. The latter tests are crucial in answering the question to which extent the Malmquist index can approximate the Hicks–Moorsteen index that has a Total Factor Productivity (TFP) interpretation. Finally, we draw up a list of remaining issues that could benefit from further exploration.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • K. Kerstens & I. van de Woestyne, 2014. "Comparing Malmquist and Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indices : exploring the impact of unbalanced vs. balanced panel data," Post-Print hal-00907943, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00907943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    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:hal:journl:hal-00907943. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.