Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing technical efficiency of organic and conventional coffee farms in rural hill region of Nepal using data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach

  • Published:
Organic Agriculture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach was used to estimate technical efficiency scores which were then regressed against farm specific characters using Tobit regression. Primary data were collected from a random sample of 240 organic and conventional coffee famers (120 from each type). Mean technical efficiency scores were 0.89 and 0.83 for organic and conventional coffee farming, respectively. Scores for farms operating under constant return to scale (CRS), decreasing return to scale (DRS) and increasing return to scale (IRS) were 31.67, 3.83, and 37.5 %, respectively, for organic coffee and 29.17, 25, and 45.83 %, respectively, in conventional farming areas. These scale characteristics define a production set that is closed and convex with property of strong disposability. Tobit regression showed that the variation in technical efficiency was related to education, farm experience and training/extension services, and access to credit. Farmers would reconsider the rationing of input and learn from technically efficient farm practices. Policy implications will rest on production planning strategies. The objective of this study was to estimate the technical efficiency of both types of farming and evaluating the factors affecting farm inefficiency of each farming category of coffee in rural region of Nepal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aigner DJ, Lovell CK, Schmidt P (1977) Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J Econ 6(1):21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali M, Flinn JC (1989) Profit efficiency among Basmati rice producers in Pakistan Punjab. Am J Agric Econ 71:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali M, Chaudhary MA (1990) Inter-regional farm efficiency in Pakistan Punjab: A frontier production function study. J Agric Econ 41:62–74

  • APP (1995) Agriculture Perspective Plan. APROSC and JMA Inc. National Planning Secretariat, Singh Durbar, Nepal

  • Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Models for the estimation of technical and scale inefficiencies in DEA. Manag Sci 30:1078–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battese GE, Coelli T (1995) A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empir Econ 20:325–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beets WC (1982) Multiple cropping and tropical farming systems. West View Press Inc., Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbase K, Grabowski R (1985) Technical efficiency in Nepalese agriculture. J Dev Areas 19:515–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya P, Chakraworty G (2005) Current status of organic farming in India and other countries. Indian J Fertil 1(9):111–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Ureta BE, Pinheiro AE (1993) Efficiency analysis of developing country agriculture: a review of the frontier function literature. Agric Resour Econ Rev 22(1):88–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Ureta BE, Pinheiro AE (1997) Technical, economic and allocative efficiency in peasant farming: evidence from the Dominican Republic. Dev Econ XXXV(1):48–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Ureta BE, Reiger L (1991) Dairy farm efficiency measurement using stochastic frontier and neoclassical duality. Am J Agric Econ 73:421–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazdik F (2006) Non-parametric analysis of technical efficiency: factors affecting efficiency of west java rice farms. Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education, Charles University, Working Paper Series, Prague, Czech Republic

  • CBS (2007) Statistical year book of Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics. Kathmandu, Nepal

  • Charnes A, Cooper W, Lewin AY, Seiford LM (1994) Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and application. Kulwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chavas JP, Aliber M (1993) An analysis of economic efficiency in agriculture: a nonparametric approach. J Agric Resour Econ 18(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelli TJ, Battese GE (1996) Identification of factors which influence the technical inefficiency of Indian farmers. Aust J Agric Econ 40:103–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’Donnel CJ, Battese GE (2005) An introduction to inefficiency and productivity analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Colman D, Young T (1995) Principle of agricultural economics: markets and prices in less developed countries. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain

    Google Scholar 

  • De Janvry A, Fafchamps M, Sadoulet E (1991) Peasant household behavior with missing markets: some paradoxes explained. Econ J 101:1400–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhungana BR, Peter LN, Nartea GV (2004) Measuring the economic efficiency of Nepalese rice farms using data envelopment analysis. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 48(2):347–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhungana B, Sugimoto Y, Yamamoto N, Kano H (2010) Technical efficiency analysis of vegetable farms in the mid-hill region of Nepal-an approach using data envelopment analysis. Japanese J Food Agric Resour Econ 60(2):27–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Lovell CAK (1978) Measuring the technical efficiency of production. J Econ Theory 19:150–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Grosskorf SS, Lovell CAK (1985) The measurement of efficiency of production. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Grosskorf SS, Lovell CAK (1994) Production frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc 120(3):253–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Featherstone AM, Langemeier MR, Ismet M (1997) A nonparametric analysis of efficiency for a sample of Kansas beef cow farm. J Agric Appl Econ 29(1):175–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer G, Kaye-Blake W, Zellman E, Parsonson-Ensor C (2008) Comparison of the financial performance of organic and conventional farms. J Org Syst 3(2):18–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallam D, Machado F (1996) Efficiency analysis with panel data: a study of Portuguese dairy farms. Eur Rev Agric Econ 12:79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayami Y, Ruttan V (1985) Agricultural development: an international perspective, 1st edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Idiong IC (2007) Estimation of farm level technical efficiency in small scale swamp rice production in cross river site of Nigeria: a stochastic frontier approach. World J Agric Sci 3(5):653–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoni OE, Ike PC (2006) Determinants of yam production and economic efficiency among small-holder farmers in southern Nigeria. J Cent Eur Agric 7(2):337–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston B, Mellor J (1961) The role of agriculture in economic development. Am Econ Rev 51:566–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalirajan KP (1991) The importance of efficient use in the adoption of technology: a macro panel data analysis. J Prod Anal 2:113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kebede TA (2001) Farm household technical efficiency: a stochastic frontier analysis: a study of rice producer in Mardi watershed in the western development region of Nepal. Master Thesis. Department of Economics and Social Sciences. Agricultural University of Norway

  • Koopmans TC (1951) An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, Monograph No. 13, John Wiley and Sons, New York

  • Lotter DW (2003) Organic agriculture. J Sustain Agric 21(4):59–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296(5573):1694–1697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mendola M (2007) Farm household production theories: a review of institutional and behavioral response. Asian Dev Rev 24:49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • MOAC (2009) Ministry of agriculture and cooperatives. Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture. MOAC, Singhdurbar, Nepal

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris C, Hopkins A, Winter M (2001) Comparison of the social, economic and environmental effects of organic, ICM and conventional farming. CCRU Cheltenham and Gloucester College of HE, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Nepal A (2006) Soil nutrient analysis of organic coffee farm in Gulmi district. Green Field 4(1):104–105

    Google Scholar 

  • NTCDB (2009) Nepal tea and coffee development board (NTCDB). http://www.teacoffee.gov.np/nepal.html. Accessed 23 March 2011

  • Pacini C, Wossink A, Giesen G, Vazzana C, Huirne R (2002) Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming system: a farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 95(1). In: Greer G, William Kaye-Blake, Eva Zellman, Chris Parsonson-Ensor (2008) Comparison of the financial performance of organic and conventional farms. J Org Syst 3(2):18–28

  • Parikh A, Ali F, Shah MK (1995) Measurement of economic efficiency in Pakistani agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 77:675–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman S (2010) Women’s labour contribution to productivity and efficiency in agriculture: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. J Agric Econ 61:318–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray SC (2004) Data envelopment analysis: theory and techniques for economics and operations research. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthenberg H (1980) Farming system in the tropics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz TW (1964) Transforming traditional agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven. ISBN 9780226740751

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro KH, Muller J (1983) Sources of technical efficiency: the roles of modernization and information. Econ Dev Cult Chang 25:293–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma KR, Leung P, Zalleski HM (1999) Technical, allocative, and economic efficiencies in swine production in Hawaii: a comparison of parametric and non-parametric approaches. Agric Econ 20:23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires D, Tabor S (1991) Technical efficiency and future production gains in Indonesian agriculture. Dev Econ 29:258–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadessea B, Krishnamoorthy S (1997) Technical efficiency in paddy farms of Tamilnadu: an analysis based on farm size and ecological zone. J Agric Econ 16:185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEPC (2009) Trade and export promotion center. Nepal overseas trade statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzouvelekas V, Pantzios CJ, Fotopoulos C (2001) Technical efficiency of alternative farming systems: the case of Greek organic and conventional olive-growing farms. Food Policy 26:549–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umoh GS (2006) Resource use efficiency in urban farming: an application of stochastic frontier production function. Int J Agric Biol 8(1):38–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian HR (1984) The nonparametric approach to production analysis. Econometrica 52(3):579–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadud A, White B (2000) Farm household efficiency in Bangladesh: a comparison stochastic frontier and DEA methods. Appl Econ 32:1665–1673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, Jeffrey SR (1998) Efficiency and technical progress in traditional and modern agriculture: evidence from rice production in China. Agric Econ 18:157–165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yussefi M, Willer H (2002) Organic agriculture worldwide statistics and future prospects. Stiftung Okologie and Landbau, Bad Durkheim, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J (2002) Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    K. L. Poudel

  2. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Thomas G. Johnson & Bhawani Mishra

  3. University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan

    Naoyuki Yamamoto

  4. AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center, Bangkok, Thailand

    Shriniwas Gautam

Authors
  1. K. L. Poudel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas G. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Naoyuki Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shriniwas Gautam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bhawani Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. L. Poudel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Poudel, K.L., Johnson, T.G., Yamamoto, N. et al. Comparing technical efficiency of organic and conventional coffee farms in rural hill region of Nepal using data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Org. Agr. 5, 263–275 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-0102-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-0102-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation