Abstract
In the usual stochastic frontier model, all firms are inefficient, because inefficiency is non-negative and the probability that inefficiency is exactly zero equals zero. We modify this model by adding a parameter p which equals the probability that a firm is fully efficient. We can estimate this model by MLE and obtain estimates of the fraction of firms that are fully efficient and of the distribution of inefficiency for the inefficient firms. This model has also been considered by Kumbhakar et al. (J Econ 172:66–76, 2013). We extend their paper in several ways. We discuss some identification issues that arise if all firms are inefficient or no firms are inefficient. We show that results like those of Waldman (J Econ 18:275–279, 1982) hold for this model, that is, that the likelihood has a stationary point at parameters that indicate no inefficiency and that this point is a local maximum if the OLS residuals are positively skewed. Finally, we consider problems involved in testing the hypothesis that p = 0. We also provide some simulations and an empirical example.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aigner D, Lovell CK, Schmidt P (1977) Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J Econ 6:21–37
Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identication. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723
Alvarez A, Amsler C, Orea L, Schmidt P (2006) Interpreting and testing the scaling property in models where inefficiency depends on firm characteristics. J Prod Anal 25:201–212
Amsler C, Prokhorov A, Schmidt P (2014) Using copulas to model time dependence in stochastic frontier models. Econ Rev (forthcoming)
Andrews DWK (2001) Testing when a parameter is on the boundary of the maintained hypothesis. Econometrica 69:683–734
Battese GE, Coelli TJ (1988) Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data. J Econ 38:387–399
Battese GE, Coelli TJ (1995) A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empir Econ 20:325–332
Berg SA, Førsund FR, Hjalmarsson L, Suominen M (1993) Banking efficiency in the Nordic countries. J Banking Financ 17:371–388
Caudill SB (2003) Estimating a mixture of stochastic frontier regression models via the em algorithm: a multiproduct cost function application. Empir Econ 28:581–598
Caudill SB, Ford JM (1993) Biases in frontier estimation due to heteroskedasticity. Econ Lett 41:17–20
Caudill SB, Ford JM, Gropper DM (1995) Frontier estimation and firm-specific inefficiency measures in the presence of heteroscedasticity. J Bus Econ Stat 13:105–111
Chen Y, Liang K-Y (2010) On the asymptotic behaviour of the pseudolikelihood ratio test statistic with boundary problems. Biometrika 97:603–620
Coelli TJ, Rao DP, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2005) An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Springer, New York
Førsund FR, Hjalmarsson L (1974) On the measurement of productive efficiency. Swed J Econ 76:141–154
Gouriéroux C, Holly A, Monfort A (1982) Likelihood ratio test, Wald test, and Kuhn--Tucker test in linear models with inequality constraints on the regression parameters. Econometrica 50:63–80
Gouriéroux C, Monfort A (1995) Statistics and econometric models. In: Statistics and econometric models: testing, confidence regions, model selection, and asymptotic theory, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, New York
Grassetti L (2011) A novel mixture based stochastic frontier model with application to hospital efficiency. unpublished manuscript, University of Udine
Greene W (2005) Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model. J Econ 126:269–303
Greene WH (2012) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, New York
Hannan EJ, Quinn BG (1979) The determination of the order of an autoregression. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 41:190–195
Hayashi F (2000) Econometrics. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Huang CJ, Liu J-T (1994) Estimation of a non-neutral stochastic frontier production function. J Prod Anal 5:171–180
Jondrow J, Lovell CK, Materov IS, Schmidt P (1982) On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. J Econ 19:233–238
Kumbhakar SC, Ghosh S, McGuckin JT (1991) A generalized production Frontier approach for estimating determinants of inefficiency in U.S. dairy farms. J Bus Econ Stat 9:279–286
Kumbhakar SC, Parmeter CF, Tsionas EG (2013) A zero inefficiency stochastic Frontier model. J Econ 172:66–76
Meeusen W, van den Broeck J (1977) Efficiency estimation from Cobb–Douglas production function with composed error. Int Econ Rev 18:435–444
Orea L, Kumbhakar SC (2004) Efficiency measurement using a latent class stochastic frontier model. Empir Econ 29:169–183
Reifschneider D, Stevenson R (1991) Systematic departures from the Frontier: a framework for the analysis of firm inefficiency. Int Econ Rev 32:715–723
Rogers AJ (1986) Modified lagrange multiplier tests for problems with one-sided alternatives. J Econ 31:341–361
Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464
Self SG, Liang K-Y (1987) Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. J Am Stat Assoc 82:605–610
Waldman DM (1982) A stationary point for the stochastic frontier likelihood. J Econ 18:275–279
Wang H-J (2002) Heteroscedasticity and non-monotonic efficiency effects of a stochastic frontier model. J Prod Anal 18:241–253
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
We will use the following notation. Let \(f_{v}\left(\varepsilon_{i}\right)=\sqrt{{\frac{1+\lambda^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}}}\phi\left(\varepsilon_{i}\sqrt{{\frac{1+\lambda^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}}}\right),f_{\varepsilon}\left(\varepsilon_{i}\right)={\frac{2}{\sigma}}\phi\left({\frac{\varepsilon_{i}}{\sigma}}\right)\left(1\!-\!\Upphi\left({\frac{\varepsilon_{i}\lambda}{\sigma}}\right)\right),f_{p}\left(\varepsilon_{i}\right)=pf_{v}\left(\varepsilon_{i}\right)+\left(1-p\right)f_{\varepsilon}\left(\varepsilon_{i}\right),\ln{L}=\sum \ln{f}_{p}\left(\varepsilon_{i}\right),m_{i}={\frac{\phi\left({\frac{\varepsilon_{i}\lambda}{\sigma}}\right)}{1-\Upphi\left({\frac{\varepsilon_{i}\lambda}{\sigma}}\right)}},\theta=\left(\beta^{\prime},\lambda,\sigma^{2},p\right)^{\prime},\beta=k\times 1\hbox{ vector},\theta^{**}=\left(\hat{\beta}^{\prime},\hat{\lambda},\hat{\sigma}^{2},\hat{p}\right)^{\prime},\) where \(\hat{\beta}=\hbox{OLS}, \hat{\lambda}=0, \hat{\sigma}^{2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\hat{\varepsilon}_i^2, \hat{\varepsilon}_i=y_i-x_i^{\prime}\hat{\beta},\;\hat{p}\in[0, 1].\) ∨ indicates maximum.
Result 1
θ ** is a stationary point of the log likelihood function.
Proof
The first derivative of \(\ln{L}\) is:
When λ = 0,
It is straightforward that \(S\left(\theta^{**}\right)=0,\) since, with \(\varepsilon_{i}=\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}, \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}=0\) and \(\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}{{\bf x}}_{i}=0.\) Therefore, θ ** is a stationary point. \(\square\)
Result 2
Evaluated at the stationary point, θ ,** the Hessian of the log likelihood is negative semi-definite with two zero eigenvalues.
Proof
The Hessian evaluated at the stationary point θ ** is
When \(\hat{p}=1,\)
Because \(-{\frac{1}{\hat{\sigma}^{2}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}{{\bf x}}_{i}{{\bf x}}_{i}^{\prime}\) is a negative definite matrix, \(H\left(\theta^{**}\right)\) is a negative semi-definite matrix with two zero eigenvalues.
Now suppose that \(\hat{p}\neq 1.\) Note that the first row of \(H\left(\theta^{**}\right), \left(-{\frac{1} {\hat{\sigma}^{2}}}\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{{\bf x}}_{i}^{\prime}, \left(1-\hat{p}\right)\sqrt{{\frac{2}{\pi}}}{\frac{n} {\hat{\sigma}}}, 0, 0 \right),\) is linearly dependent with the (k + 1)th row of \(H\left(\theta^{**}\right).\) Multiplying the first row by \(\left(1-\hat{p}\right)\sqrt{{\frac{2} {\pi}}}\hat{\sigma}\) and adding to the \(\left(k+1\right){\rm th} \) row results in a row vector of zeros. Hence,
where ∼ stands for an elementary row operation. Again, the first column and the (k + 1)th column of the transferred matrix are linearly dependent. Similarly, multiplying the first column by \((1-\hat{p})\sqrt{{\frac{2}{\pi}}}\hat{\sigma}\) and adding to the \((k+1){\rm th}\) column results in a column vector of zeros. In other words,
Elementary operations preserve the rank of a matrix. Hence, the rank of \( H\left(\theta^{**}\right)\) is k + 1, i.e., \(H\left(\theta^{**}\right)\) has two zero eigenvalues.
Now we will show that H(θ **) is negative semi-definite. Let \(\alpha=\left(\alpha_{1}^{\prime},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3},\alpha_{4}\right)^{\prime}\) be an arbitrary non-zero \(\left(k+3\right) \times 1\) vector, where α1 is a k × 1 vector, and α2, α3, α4 are scalars. Then,
Therefore \(H\left(\theta^{**}\right)\) is negative semi-definite. \(\square\)
Result 3
θ ** with \(\hat p\in[0,1)\) is a local maximizer of the log likelihood function if and only if \( \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}^{3}\!\!>0.\)
Proof
From Result 2, we know that the Hessian evaluated at θ ** is negative semi-definite. Therefore, if the log likelihood decreases in the direction of the two eigenvectors associated with zero eigenvalues, θ ** is a local maximizer of the log likelihood. The two eigenvectors that are associated with the two zero eigenvalue are
Let
Because λ ≥ 0, μ > 0. \(\Updelta\theta\) has only three non-zero arguments. Thus, relevant parameters would be β 0,λ, and p. By Taylor’s expansion,
The 1st order term is zero because θ ** is a stationary point (Result 1). The 2nd order term is zero by the definition of the eigenvector. Note that \(\left(-4 \hat{p}^{2}+\hat{p} (8-3 \pi )+\pi-4 \right)\) has its maximum, π − 4 < 0, when \(\hat{p}=0.\) Since \(\mu>0, L\left(\theta^{*}+\Updelta\theta\right)-L\left(\theta^{*}\right)<0\) if and only if \(\sum\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}^{3}>0.\) Therefore, θ ** with \(\hat{p}\in\left[0,1\right)\) is a local maximizer if and only if \(\sum\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}^{3}>0.\) When \(\hat{p}=0,\) the expression goes back to the one in Waldman (1982). \(\square\)
Result 4
θ ** with \(\hat p=1\) is a local maximizer of the likelihood function if \( \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}^{3}\!\!>0.\)
Proof
The two eigenvectors associated with the zero eigenvalues are
Let
Because λ ≥ 0 and p ≤ 1, μ > 0 and ϕ < 0. \(\Updelta\theta\) has only two non-zero arguments. Thus, the relevant parameters would be λ and p. By Taylor’s expansion,
The 1st order term is zero because θ ** is a stationary point (Result 1). The 2nd order term is zero by the definition of the eigenvector. The third order term is zero because \(L\left(\theta^{*}+\Updelta\theta\right)-L\left(\theta^{*}\right)\) in Result 3 is zero when \(\hat{p}=1.\) Since ϕ < 0 and \(\mu>0, {\frac{1}{3\hat{\sigma}^{3}}}\sqrt{{\frac{2} {\pi}}}\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}^{3}\mu^{3}\phi<0\) when \(\sum\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}^{3}>0.\) Therefore, if \(\sum\hat{\varepsilon}_{i}^{3}>0, L\left(\theta^{*}+\Updelta\theta\right)-L\left(\theta^{*}\right)<0\) and θ ** with \(\hat{p}=1\) is a local maximizer. \(\square\)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rho, S., Schmidt, P. Are all firms inefficient?. J Prod Anal 43, 327–349 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-013-0374-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-013-0374-7