IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oeg/wpaper/2002-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choosing the Technical Efficiency Orientation to Analyze Firms’ Technology: A Model Selection Test Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Orea, Luis
  • Roibas, David
  • Wall, Alan

Abstract

We focus on the importance of the assumptions regarding how inefficiency should be incorporated into the specification of the data generating process in an examination of a sector’s production or efficiency. Drawing on the literature on non-nested hypothesis testing, we find that the model selection approach of Vuong (1989) is a potentially useful tool for identifying the best specification before carrying out such studies. We include an empirical application using panel data on Spanish dairy farms where we estimate cost frontiers under different specifications of how inefficiency enters the data generating process (in particular, efficiency is introduced as an input oriented, output oriented and hyperbolic parameter). Our results show that the different models yield very different pictures of the technology and the efficiency levels of the sector, illustrating the importance of choosing the most correct model before carrying out production and efficiency analyses. The Vuong test shows that the input oriented model is the best, whereas the output oriented model is the worst. This is consistent with the fact that the input and output oriented models provide the most and least credible estimates of scale economies given the structure of the sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Orea, Luis & Roibas, David & Wall, Alan, 2002. "Choosing the Technical Efficiency Orientation to Analyze Firms’ Technology: A Model Selection Test Approach," Efficiency Series Papers 2002/04, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
  • Handle: RePEc:oeg:wpaper:2002/04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.unioviedo.es/oeg/ESP/esp_2002_04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1981. "Several Tests for Model Specification in the Presence of Alternative Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 781-793, May.
    2. Robert Innes, 2000. "The Economics of Livestock Waste and Its Regulation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 97-117.
    3. Atkinson, Scott E & Cornwell, Christopher, 1994. "Estimation of Output and Input Technical Efficiency Using a Flexible Form and Panel Data," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(1), pages 245-255, February.
    4. Rafael Cuesta, 2000. "A Production Model With Firm-Specific Temporal Variation in Technical Inefficiency: With Application to Spanish Dairy Farms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 139-158, March.
    5. Fisher, Gordon R. & McAleer, Michael, 1981. "Alternative procedures and associated tests of significance for non-nested hypotheses," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 103-119, May.
    6. Bert Balk, 2001. "Scale Efficiency and Productivity Change," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 159-183, May.
    7. Schmidt, Peter & Sickles, Robin C, 1984. "Production Frontiers and Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(4), pages 367-374, October.
    8. Gourieroux,Christian & Monfort,Alain, 1995. "Statistics and Econometric Models," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521405515, December.
    9. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2002. "A note about model selection and tests for non-nested contingent valuation models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 363-370, February.
    10. MacKinnon, James G. & White, Halbert & Davidson, Russell, 1983. "Tests for model specification in the presence of alternative hypotheses : Some further results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 53-70, January.
    11. Christensen, Laurits R & Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J, 1973. "Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 55(1), pages 28-45, February.
    12. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    13. Gourieroux,Christian & Monfort,Alain, 1995. "Statistics and Econometric Models 2 volume set," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521478373, July.
    14. Gasmi, F. & Laffont, J. J. & Vuong, Q. H., 1990. "A structural approach to empirical analysis of collusive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(2-3), pages 513-523, May.
    15. Chang, Ching-Cheng & Stefanou, Spiro E., 1988. "Specification and estimation of asymmetric adjustment rates for quasi-fixed factors of production," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 145-151, March.
    16. Berndt, Ernst R. & Christensen, Laurits R., 1973. "The translog function and the substitution of equipment, structures, and labor in U.S. manufacturing 1929-68," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 81-113, March.
    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. Kumbhakar, Subal & Orea, Luis & Rodríguez-Álvarez, Ana & Tsionas, Efthymos, 2003. "Estimating a Mixture of Efficiency Indices," Efficiency Series Papers 2003/08, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    2. Antonio Alvarez & Carlos Arias, 2014. "A selection of relevant issues in applied stochastic frontier analysis," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 3-11.
    3. Rodriguez, Xose Anton & Arias, Carlos, 2008. "The effects of resource depletion on coal mining productivity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 397-408, March.
    4. Corton, Maria Luisa & Berg, Sanford V., 2009. "Benchmarking Central American water utilities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3-4), pages 267-275, September.
    5. Kumbhakar, Subal & Tsionas, Efthymios, 2003. "Recent Developments in Stochastic Frontier Modeling," Efficiency Series Papers 2003/06, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    6. Carol Newman & Alan Matthews, 2006. "The productivity performance of Irish dairy farms 1984–2000: a multiple output distance function approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 191-205, October.
    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. Roibas, David & Arias, Carlos, 2004. "Endogeneity Problems in the Estimation of Multi-Output Technologies," Efficiency Series Papers 2004/06, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    9. Subal Kumbhakar & Luis Orea & Ana Rodríguez-Álvarez & Efthymios Tsionas, 2007. "Do we estimate an input or an output distance function? An application of the mixture approach to European railways," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 87-100, April.
    10. Fabian Frick & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Technological Change in Dairy Farming with Increased Price Volatility," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 564-588, June.
    11. Álvarez, Antonio & Arias, Carlos & Kumbhakar, Subal, 2003. "Empirical Consequences of Direction Choice in Technical Efficiency Analysis," Efficiency Series Papers 2003/02, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McAleer, Michael, 1995. "The significance of testing empirical non-nested models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 149-171, May.
    2. J. M. C. Santos Silva, 2001. "A score test for non-nested hypotheses with applications to discrete data models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 577-597.
    3. Hagemann, Andreas, 2012. "A simple test for regression specification with non-nested alternatives," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(2), pages 247-254.
    4. Otsu, Taisuke & Whang, Yoon-Jae, 2011. "Testing For Nonnested Conditional Moment Restrictions Via Conditional Empirical Likelihood," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 114-153, February.
    5. Pierani, Pierpaolo & Rizzi, Pier Luigi, 2003. "Technology and efficiency in a panel of Italian dairy farms: an SGM restricted cost function approach," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 195-209, October.
    6. Yang, Chao & Lee, Lung-fei & Qu, Xi, 2018. "Tobit models with social interactions: Complete vs incomplete information," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 30-50.
    7. Wong, Chan-Yuan & Goh, Kim-Leng, 2010. "Growth behavior of publications and patents: A comparative study on selected Asian economies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 460-474.
    8. Jean-Marie Dufour & Alain Trognon & Purevdorj Tuvaandorj, 2017. "Invariant tests based on M -estimators, estimating functions, and the generalized method of moments," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1-3), pages 182-204, March.
    9. Dastoor, Naorayex & Fisher, Gordon, 1987. "On Point-Optimal Cox Tests," Queen's Institute for Economic Research Discussion Papers 275207, Queen's University - Department of Economics.
    10. Franses Philip Hans & Paap Richard, 2013. "Common large innovations across nonlinear time series," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 251-263, May.
    11. Luis R. Murillo‐Zamorano, 2004. "Economic Efficiency and Frontier Techniques," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 33-77, February.
    12. Silva João M. C. Santos & Tenreyro Silvana & Windmeijer Frank, 2015. "Testing Competing Models for Non-negative Data with Many Zeros," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Kuan, Chung-Ming & Lin, Hsin-Yi, 2010. "An encompassing test for non-nested quantile regression models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 257-260, May.
    14. Matteo Manera & Michael McAleer, 2005. "Testing Multiple Non‐Nested Factor Demand Systems," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 37-66, January.
    15. Luc Anselin, 1988. "Model Validation in Spatial Econometrics: A Review and Evaluation of Alternative Approaches," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 11(3), pages 279-316, December.
    16. Dumont, Michel, 2004. "The Impact of International Trade with Newly Industrialised Countries on the Wages and Employment of Low-Skilled and High-Skilled Workers in the European Union," Thesis Commons bmxag, Center for Open Science.
    17. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 2002. "Bootstrap J tests of nonnested linear regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 167-193, July.
    18. MacKinnon, James G, 1992. "Model Specification Tests and Artificial Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(1), pages 102-146, March.
    19. Kevin A. Clarke, 2003. "Nonparametric Model Discrimination in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 72-93, February.
    20. Wang, Qinan & Wu, Zhang, 2007. "An empirical study on the Lanchester model of combat for competitive advertising decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(2), pages 871-881, December.

    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:oeg:wpaper:2002/04. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/geovies.html .

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Luis Orea or David Roibas (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/geovies.html .

    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.