Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficiency and Productivity Analysis from a System Perspective: Historical Overview

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Economic Measurement

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed an exponential proliferation of studies on Network Data Envelopment Analysis (NDEA) as a tool to measure efficiency and productivity for production systems. Those systems are composed of various layers of decision making (hierarchically organized) and potentially interconnected production processes. The decision makers face the problem of allocating resources to the various production processes in an efficient manner. This chapter provides a historical perspective to these developments by linking them to earlier works dating back to Kantorovich (Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production. Leningrad University, 1939) and Koopmans (Activity analysis of production and allocation, 1951). Both the allocation problem and the measures of efficiency used by these early authors are astonishingly relevant and similar to those in the recent NDEA literature. The modern researcher in NDEA should take stock of this early forgotten contributions.

We would like to thank Knox Lovell and Prasada Rao for reading a version of this paper and providing comments and insights.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agrell, P. J.K., & Hatami-Marbini, A. (2013). Frontier-based performance analysis models for supply chain management: State of the art and research directions. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 66, 567–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aigner, D., Lovell, C., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production models. Journal of Econometrics, 6, 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, J. (1995). Determining teaching and research efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 441–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogetoft, P., Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., & Taylor, L. (2009). Dynamic network DEA: An illustration. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 52(2), 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buccola, S., & Fare, R. (2008). Reaggregation and firm-level inference in multiplant technologies. Journal of Economics, 95(3), 255–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelli, L., & Pesenti, R. (2014). Network, shared flow and multi-level DEA models: A critical review. In W. Cook & J. Zhu (Eds.), Data Envelopment Analysis, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science 208 (pp. 329–376). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., and Ukovich, W. (2004). DEA like models for the efficiency evaluation of hierarchically structured units. European Journal of Operational Research, 154:465?476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., and Ukovich, W. (2010). A classification of DEA models when the internal structure of the decision making units is considered. Annals of Operations Research, 173:207?235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1962). On some works of kantorovich, koopmans and others. Management Science, 8(3), 246–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Cook, W., Kao, C., and Zhu, J. (2013). Network dea pitfalls: Divisional efficiency and frontier projection under general network structures. European Journal of Operational Research, 226(3):507?515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye, L., Rock, B. D., Dierynck, B., Roodhooft, F., & Sabbe, J. (2013). Opening the black box of efficiency measurement: Input allocation in multi-output settings. Operations Research, 61(5), 1148–1165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye, L., Rock, B. D., & Hennebel, V. (2017). Coordination efficiency in multi-output settings: a dea approach. Annals of Operations Research, 250, 205–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W., Chai, D., Doyle, J., & Green, R. (1998). Hierarchies and groups in DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 10, 177–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W., & Green, R. (2004). Multicomponent efficiency measurement and core business identification in multiplant firms: A DEA model. European Journal of Operational Research, 157, 540–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W., & Green, R. (2005). Evaluating power plant efficiency: a hierarchical model. Computers and Operations Research, 32, 813–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W., Liang, L., & Zhu, J. (2010). Measuring performance of two-stage network structures by dea: a review and future perspective. Omega, 38(6), 423–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Despotis, D. K., Koronakos, G., & Sotiros, D. (2016). Composition versus decomposition in two-stage network dea: a reverse approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 45, 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, J., Feng, C., Bi, G., Liang, L., & Khan, M. (2015). Cone ratio models with shared resources and nontransparent allocation parameters in network dea. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 44, 137–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallah-Fini, S., Triantis, K., & Johnson, A. L. (2014). Reviewing the literature on non-parametric dynamic efficiency measurement: state-of-the-art. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 41(1), 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fare, R. (1986). A dynamic non-parametric measure of output efficiency. Operations Research Letters, 5(2), 83–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fare, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1996). Intertemporal production frontiers: with dynamic DEA. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fare, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Network dea. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34, 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Margaritis, D., & Weber, W. L. (2018). Dynamic efficiency and productivity. In The Oxford Handbook of Productivity Analysis (pp. 183–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fare, R., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1978). Measuring the technical efficiency of production. Journal of Economic Theory, 19(1), 150–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, general 120(Part 3):253–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsund, F. R., & Hjalmarsson, L. (1979). Generalised Farrell measures of efficiency: an application to milk processing in Swedish dairy plants. The Economic Journal, 89(June), 294–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, H., & Mirdehghan, S. (2012). Identifying the efficiency status in network dea. European Journal of Operational Research, 220, 85–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. (1990). Lv kantorovich: The price implications of optimal planning. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(2), 638–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong, B. and Sickles, R. C. (2021). Resource allocation in multi-divisional multi-product firms. Journal of Productivity Analysis, pages 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houthakker, H. S. (1955). The pareto distribution and the cobb-douglas production function in activity analysis. The Review of Economic Studies, 23(1), 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isbell, J. R., & Marlow, W. H. (1961). On an industrial programming problem of kantorovich. Management Science, 8(1), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, L. (1972). Production functions; an integration of micro and macro, short run and long run aspects. Technical report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, L. (1976). Lv kantorovich’s contribution to economics. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 78(1), 61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. I. (2005). The shape of production functions and the direction of technical change. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 517–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantorovich, L. V. (1939). Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production. Leningrad University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantorovich, L. V. (1960). Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production. Management science, 6(4), 366–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantorovich, L. V. (1965). The best use of economic resources. The best use of economic resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C. (2009). Efficiency decomposition in network data envelopment analysis: a relational model. European Journal of Operational Research, 192(1), 949–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C. (2012). Efficiency decomposition for parallel production systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63(1), 64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C. (2013). Dynamic data envelopment analysis: A relational analysis. European Journal of Operations Research, 227(1), 325–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C. (2014). Network DEA analysis: a review. European Journal of Operational Research, 239(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C., & Hwang, S.-N. (2010). Efficiency measurement for network systems: IT impact on firm performance. Decision Support Systems, 48, 437–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis, G. (2015). On structural and average technical efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 43, 259–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. (1951). Activity analysis of production and allocation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. C. (1953). Activity analysis and its applications. The American Economic Review, 43(2), 406–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. C. (1960). A note about kantorovich’s paper, “mathematical methods of organizing and planning production”. Management Science, 6(4), 363–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlov, M., & Hurlbert, S. (2006). Pseudoreplication, chatter, and the international nature of science: A response to dv tatarnikov. Journal of Fundamental Biology (Moscow), 67(2), 145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuosmanen, T., Cherchye, L., & Sipilainen, T. (2006). The law of one price in data envelopment analysis: restricting weight flexibility across firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 170, 735–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Chen, C., Cook, W., Zhang, J., & Zhu, J. (2018). Two-stage network dea: who is the leader. Omega, 74, 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., & Cheng, Y. (2007). Solving the puzzles of structural efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 180, 713–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S.-K., & NG, Y. (1995). Measuring the productive efficiency of a group of firms. International Advances in Economic Research, 1, 377–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S. and Zhu, J. (2016). A note on two-stage network dea model: frontier projection and duality. European Journal of Operational Research, pages 342–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. E. (1985). On watersheds and peers, publication, pimps and panache (an editorial abstract). The Florida Entomologist, 68(1), 134–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, S., & Villa, G. (2004). Centralized resource allocation using data envelopment analysis. Journal of productivity Analysis, 22, 143–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mar Molinero, C., Prior, D., Segovia, M., & Portillo, F. (2014). On centralized resource utilization and its reallocation by using dea. Annals of Operational Research, 221, 273–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeusen, W. and van Den Broeck, J. (1977). Efficiency estimation from cobb-douglas production functions with composed error. International economic review, pages 435–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemoto, J., & Goto, M. (2003). measurement of dynamic efficiency in production: an application of data envelopment analysis to japanese electric utilities. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 19, 191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, C. J., Rao, D. S. P., & Battese, G. E. (2008). Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Economics, 34, 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachkova, E. V. (2009). Restricted reallocation of resources. European Journal of Operational Research, 196, 1049–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasinetti, L. L. (1973). The notion of vertical integration in economic analysis. Metroeconomica, 1, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyrache, A. (2013). Industry structural inefficiency and potential gains from mergers and break-ups: a comprehensive approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 230(2), 422–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyrache, A. (2015). Cost constrained industry inefficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(3), 996–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyrache, A. and Silva, M. (2019). The inefficiency of production systems and its decomposition. working paper, Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (CEPA) working paper. WP05/2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyrache, A., & Zago, A. (2016). Large courts, small justice! the inefficiency and the optimal structure of the italian justice sector. Omega, 64, 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podinovski, V., Olsen, O., & Sarrico, C. (2018). Nonparametric production technologies with multiple component processes. Operations Research, 66(1), 282–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, A., & Zofio, J. (2007). Network dea efficiency in input-output models: with an application to oecd countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 292–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S. C., & Hu, X. (1997). On the technically efficient organization of an industry: a study of US airlines. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, R. R., & Schworm, W. (2009). Axiomatic foundations of efficiency measurement on data-generated technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 31(2), 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, R. R., & Schworm, W. (2011). Properties of inefficiency indexes on< input, output> space. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 36(2), 143–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline : the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shephard, R. W. (1970). Theory of Cost and production functions. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotiros, D., Koronakos, G., & Despotis, D. K. (2019). Dominance at the divisional efficiencies level in network dea: The case of two-stage processes. Omega, 85, 144–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, K. S. (1984). Marginalia: The literature of science. American Scientist, 72(2), 185–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2009). Network dea: a slacks based measure approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 197, 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2014). Dynamic dea with a network structure: a slacks based measure approach. Omega, 42, 124–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylvinger, S. (2000). Industry performance and structural efficiency measures: Solutions to problems in firm models. European Journal of Operational Research, 121, 164–174.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (CEPA), School of Economics, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

    Antonio Peyrache

  2. CEGE—Católica Porto Business School, Porto, Portugal

    Maria C. A. Silva

Authors
  1. Antonio Peyrache
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria C. A. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Peyrache .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Caulfield, VIC, VIC, Australia

    Duangkamon Chotikapanich

  2. St Lucia, QLD, Australia

    Alicia N. Rambaldi

  3. Southport, QLD, Australia

    Nicholas Rohde

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Peyrache, A., Silva, M.C.A. (2022). Efficiency and Productivity Analysis from a System Perspective: Historical Overview. In: Chotikapanich, D., Rambaldi, A.N., Rohde, N. (eds) Advances in Economic Measurement. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2023-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2023-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-2022-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-2023-3

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation