Article abstract

Journal of Agricultural and Crop Research

Research Article | Published June 2019 | Volume 7, Issue 6, pp. 82-94.

doi: https://doi.org/10.33495/jacr_v7i6.19.122

 

A comparison of different full and partial non-parametric frontier models for measuring technical efficiency: With an application to Iran’s cotton producing provinces

 




 

 

Masoomeh Rashidghalam1

Almas Heshmati2*

 

Email Author


 Tel: +82-10-4513-1712.

 

1. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

2. Department of Economics, Room GN702, Sogang University, 35 Baekbeom-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul 121-742 Korea.


……....…...………..........................…………....………............…............……...........……........................................................………...……..…....……....… CitatiCitation: Rashidghalam M, Heshmati A (2019). A comparison of different full and partial non-parametric frontier models for measuring technical efficiency: With an application to Iran’s cotton producing provinces. J. Agric. Crop Res. 7(6): 82-94.

……....…...………..........................…………....………............…............……...........……........................................................………...……..…....……....…

 Abstract 


This study analyses the technical efficiency of Iran's 13 major cotton producing provinces over the period 2000-12. It uses two non-parametric full frontier models (Data Envelopment Analysis and Free Disposal Hull) and two partial frontier models (Order-α and Order-m with different values for α and m) to assess the technical efficiency of these cotton producing provinces. It compares the different models with respect to technical efficiency scores and the provinces’ rankings. Using this method, the paper identifies the most (least) efficient provinces and follows the temporal patterns of their performance in cotton production. The study also compares the efficiency of different models according to the order of ranking using the Spearman rank order correlation. The efficiency results are sensitive to the choice of frontier model and the values of parameters m and α. According to our results, technical efficiency obtained from partial frontier models is higher than that obtained from full frontier models. Spearman rank order correlation’s results indicate that the correlation between models DEA and FDH is high. As α→1 and m→∞, the correlation coefficient between DEA with Order-α and Order-m increases. Our results also indicate that rank order correlation between FDH and Order-m is higher than that for Order-α.

Keywords  DEA   FDH   full frontier   Order-α   Order-m   partial frontier    

 

 

Copyright © 2019 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.

This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

 

 

  References 

 

Abdelaati D, Florens JP, Simar L (2012). Regularization of nonparametric frontier estimators. J Econom. 168:285-299. Afonso A, Aubyn MS (2005). Non-parametric approaches to education and health efficiency in OECD countries. Appl. Econ. 8(2):227-246.

Afriat SN (1972). Efficiency estimation of production functions. Int. Econ. Rev. 13(3):568-598. Aldamak A, Zolfaghari S (2017). Review of efficiency ranking methods in data envelopment analysis. MEASUREMENT. 106:161-172.

Aragon Y, Daouia A, Thomas-Agnan C (2005). Nonparametric frontier estimation: a conditional quantile based approach. Econom. Theory. 21(2):358-389.

Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis. Manag. Sci. 30:1078-1092.

Bauer PW (1990). Recent developments in the economic estimation of frontiers. J. Econom. 46:39-56.

Bauer PW, Berger AN, Ferrier GD, Humphre DB (1998). Consistency conditions for regulatory analysis of financial institutions: A comparison of frontier efficiency methods. J. Econ. Bus. 50(2):58-114.

Boles JN (1966). Efficiency squared – effcient computation of efficiency. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Western Farm Economic Assoc. pp. 137-142.

Carvalho P, Marques RC (2014). Computing economies of vertical integration, economies of scope and economies of scale using partial frontier nonparametric methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 234:292-307.

Cazals C, Florens JP, Simar L (2002). Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach. J. Econom. 106:1-25. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1985). Preface to topics in data envelopment analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. 2:59-94.

Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY, Seiford LM (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology, and Application, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell.

Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2:429-444.

Coelli TJ (1995). Recent developments in frontier modeling and efficiency measurement. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 39:219-245.

Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007). Data Envelopment Analysis, A comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. 2nd Edition, Springer, New York.

Daouia A, Simar L (2004). Nonparametric efficiency analysis: a multivariate conditional quantile approach, Discussion paper #0419, Institut de Statistique, Universit´e Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la- Neuve, Belgium.

Daouia A, Simar L (2005). Robust nonparametric estimators of monotone boundaries, J. Multivar. Anal. 96:311-331.

Daouia A, Gijbels I (2011). Robustness and inference in nonparametric partial frontier modeling. J. Econom. 161:147-165.

Daraio C, Simar L (2005). Conditional nonparametric frontier models for convex and non-convex technologies: A unifying approach,” Discussion Paper #0502, Institute de Statistique, Universit´e Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Daraio C, Simar L (2007). Advanced Robust and Nonparametric Methods in Efficiency Analysis: Methodology and Applications, New York: Springer.

DeBorger B, Kerstens K, Moesen W, Vanneste J (1994). A non-parametric free disposal hull (FDH) approach to technical efficiency: An illustration of radial and graph efficiency measures and some sensitivity results. Swiss J. Econ. Stat. 130(4):647-667.

Deprins D, Simar L, Tulkens H (1984). Measuring labour efficiency in post offices. In Marchand, M. and H. Tulkens (eds.) the Performance of Public Enterprises: Concepts and Measurement North-Holland, pp.243-267.

De witte K, Marques RC (2010). Influential observations in frontier models, a robust non-oriented approach to the water sector. Ann. Oper. Res. 181(1):377-392.

Farrell MJ (1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 120(3):253-290.

Fried H, Lovell K, Schmidt S (2008). The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gabdo BH, Abdlatif IB, Mohammed ZA, Shamsuddin MN (2014). Comparative estimation of technical efficiency in livestock-oil palm integration in Johor, Malaysia: Evidence from full and partial frontier estimators. J. Agric. Sci. 6(3):140-150.

Giannakas K, Tran K, Tzouvelekas V (2003). On the choice of functional form in stochastic frontier modeling. Empir. Econ. 28:75-100.

Gearhart R (2016). The robustness of cross-country healthcare efficiency ranking among homogenous OECD countries. Appl. Econ. 19(2):113-144.

Gearhart R, Michieka NM (2018). A comparison of the robust conditional order-m estimation and two stage DEA in measuring healthcare efficiency among California counties. Econ. Model. 73:395-406.

Hardeman S, Roy VV (2013). An analysis of national research systems (II): Efficiency in the production of research excellence. Joint Research Centre - European Commission; Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit - Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. Protection and Security of the Citizen - Via E. Fermi 2749, TP 361 - Ispra (VA), I-21027, Italy.

Kumbhakar SC, Lovell CAK (2000(. Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lovell CAK, Schmidt P (1988). A Comparison of alternative approaches to the measurement of productive efficiency. In A. Dogramaci and R. Fare (eds.), Applications of Modern Production Theory: Efficiency and Productivity. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 3-55.

Pjevčević D, Radonjić A, Hrle Z, Čolić V (2012). DEA window analysis for measuring port efficiencies in Serbia. PROMET-ZAGREB, 24(1):63-72.

Porembski M, Breitenstein K, Alpar P (2005). Visualizing efficiency and reference relations in data envelopment analysis with an application to the branches of a German Bank. J. Prod. Anal. 23:203-221.

Řepková I (2014). Efficiency of the Czech banking sector employing the DEA window analysis approach. Procedia Econ. Finan. 12:587-596. Ruggiero J (2007). A comparison of DEA and the stochastic frontier model using panel data. INT T OPER RES. 14:259-266.

Sengupta JK (1999). A dynamic efficiency model using data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 62:209-218.

Silva TD, Martins-filho C, Ribeiro E (2016). A comparison of nonparametric efficiency estimators: DEA, FDH, DEAC, FDHC, order-m and quantile. Econ. Bull. 36(1):118-131.

Simar L, Wilson PW (2000). Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: recent developments and perspectives. J. Prod. Anal. 13:49-78.

Subhash CR (2004). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory and Techniques for Economics and Operations Research. Cambridge University Press, UK, New York. Tauchmann H (2011). Partial frontier efficiency analysis for Stata. Discussion Paper, SF p. 823.

Tulkens H (1993). On FDH efficiency analysis: Some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit. J. Prod. Anal. 4:183-210.

World Weather and Climate Information (2015). Weather and climate: Iran, average monthly rainfall, sunshine, temperature, humidity, wind speed.

Wilson PW (1993). Detecting outliers in deterministic nonparametric frontier models with multiple outputs. J. Bus. Econ, Stat. 11:319-323.

Wilson PW (1995). Detecting influential observations in data envelopment analysis. J. Prod. Anal. 6:27-45.

Yang HH, Chang CY (2009). Using DEA window analysis to measure efficiencies of Taiwan’s integrated telecommunication firms. Telecommunications Policy. 33:98-108.