Selecting between different productivity measurement approaches: An application using EU KLEMS data
Over the years, a number of different approaches were developed to measure productivity change, both in the micro and the macro setting. Since each approach comes with its own set of assumptions, it is not uncommon in practice that they produce different, and sometimes quite divergent, productivity change estimates. This paper introduces a framework that can be used to select between the most common productivity measurement approaches based on a number of characteristics specific to the application/dataset at hand; these were selected based on the results of previous simulation analysis that examined the accuracy of different productivity measurement approaches under different conditions. The characteristics in question include input volatility through time, the extent of technical inefficiency and noise present in the dataset and whether the parametric approaches are likely to suffer from functional form miss-specification and are examined using a number of well-established diagnostics and indicators. Once assessed, the most appropriate approach can be selected based on its relative accuracy under these conditions; accuracy can in turn be assessed using simulation analysis, either previously published or designed specifically to emulate the characteristics of the application/dataset at hand. As an example of how this selection framework can be implemented in practice, we assess the productivity performance of a number of EU countries using the EU KLEMS dataset.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Diewert, W E, 1992. "The Measurement of Productivity," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 163-98, July.
- Jondrow, James & Knox Lovell, C. A. & Materov, Ivan S. & Schmidt, Peter, 1982. "On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 233-238, August.
- 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.
- Massimo Del Gatto & Adriana Di Liberto & Carmelo Petraglia, 2011.
Journal of Economic Surveys,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 952-1008, December.
- James Odeck, 2007. "Measuring technical efficiency and productivity growth: a comparison of SFA and DEA on Norwegian grain production data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(20), pages 2617-2630.
- van Ark, Bart, 1998. "Productivity," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 171-174, June.
- Fare, Rolf & Shawna Grosskopf & Mary Norris & Zhongyang Zhang, 1994. "Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 66-83, March.
- Resti, Andrea, 2000. "Efficiency measurement for multi-product industries: A comparison of classic and recent techniques based on simulated data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 559-578, March.
- Pastor, Jesus T. & Lovell, C.A. Knox, 2005. "A global Malmquist productivity index," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 266-271, August.
- Portela, Maria C.A.S. & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel, 2010. "Malmquist-type indices in the presence of negative data: An application to bank branches," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1472-1483, July.
- Banker, Rajiv D. & Chang, Hsihui & Cooper, William W., 2004. "A simulation study of DEA and parametric frontier models in the presence of heteroscedasticity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(3), pages 624-640, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:37965. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.