Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Well-being in OECD countries: an assessment of technical and social efficiency using data envelopment analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Review of Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper looks at the concept of well-being from the perspective that a way of producing well-being is sustainable if it is also efficient, such being able to last over time. The paper gets its value from considering how well-being is produced and from assessing whether OECD countries are making the most of their resources or should revise their production processes. The data envelopment analysis is performed on all 37 OECD countries using the OECD Better Life Index variables with the aim of evaluating both technical and social efficiency in producing well-being. This allows both to assess how many countries are efficient in exploiting their resources and to consider social and environmental externalities as inputs and not only as an unavoidable consequence of the production process. High well-being countries are not always efficient at producing those levels of well-being. The poorest countries show the worst social efficiency scores: in the early stages of development, countries are focused on improving technical efficiency and, only later, on issues that are not merely economic, such as environmental and social costs.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The distance between the DMU under evaluation and the optimal frontier is measured radially.

  2. The output data are available on the website OECD.STAT and refer to the last reported year (mostly referring to 2018). The input data always refer to 2018 (last reported year) and are provided by the World Bank.

  3. In line with the OECD guidelines (2008), the 11 dimensions of the BLI were obtained by aggregating two or more elementary indicators, once normalisation (using the min-max method to have values between 0 and 1), translation (for negative indicators) and arithmetic mean (between the values that refer to the same dimension) have been made.

  4. The PCA has been implemented using the varimax rotation and retaining the eigenvalues greater than 1.

  5. Among Eastern European countries, the ones with the highest levels of GDP are those with the highest levels of well-being (Fig. 3). That is: they are all countries with low levels of GDP and none of them reaches the threshold beyond which the relationship between GDP and well-being becomes non-linear. For this reason, observing this group of countries, well-being grows as GDP increases.

References

  • Adler N, Golany B (2002) Including principal component weights to improve discrimination in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 53:985–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler N, Golany B (2007) PCA-DEA. Modeling data irregularities and structural complexities in data envelopment analysis. Springer, Boston, pp 139–153

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Adler N, Yazhemsky E (2010) Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: PCA-DEA or variable reduction. Eur J Oper Res 202:273–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwala M, Atkinson G, Fry B, Homewood K, Mourato S, Rowcliffe J, Wallace G, Milner-Gulland E (2014) Assessing the relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services: a review of frameworks. Conserv Soc 12(4):437–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amerighi O, Felici B (2011) Sviluppo sostenibile e Green Economy: oltre il PIL. Energia, Ambiente e Innovazione 3/2011, ENEA

  • Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39:1261–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson K, Bows A (2011) Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 369(1934):20–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Goulder L, Daily G, Ehrlich P, Heal G, Levin S, Maler KG, Schneider S, Starrett D, Walker B (2004) Are we consuming too much? J Econ Perspect 18(3):147–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banai R, Rapino MA (2009) Urban theory since a theory of good city form (1981): a progress review. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 2(3):259–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30(9):1078–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini S, Bilancini E (2010) If not only GDP, what else? Using relational goods to predict the trends of subjective well-being. Int Rev Econ 57:199–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton J, Pretty J (2010) What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ Sci Technol 44(10):3947–3955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin DJ, Cooper KB, Heffetz O, Kimball M (2017) Challenges in constructing a survey-based well-being index. Am Econ Rev 107(5):81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder M, Broekel T (2012) Happiness no matter the cost? An examination on how efficiently individuals reach their happiness levels. J Happiness Stud 13:621–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borza M (2014) The connection between efficiency and sustainability—a theoretical approach. Proc Econ Finance 15:1355–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady D, Kaya Y, Beckfield J (2007) Reassessing the effect of economic growth on well-being in less-developed countries, 1980–2003. Stud Comp Int Dev 42:1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne DM, Fernald JG, Reinsdorf MB (2016) Does the United States have a productivity slowdown or a measurement problem? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. BPEA Conference Draft, March 10–11

  • Carboni OA, Russu P (2015) Assessing regional wellbeing in Italy: an application of Malmqvist-DEA and self-organizing Map neural clustering. Soc Indic Res 122(3):677–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Haag S, Jaska P, Semple J (1992) Sensitivity of efficiency classifications in the additive model of data envelopment analysis. Int J Syst Sci 23:789–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Rousseau J, Semple J (1996) Sensitivity and stability of efficiency classifications in data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 7:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Kress M (1990) A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Manag Sci 36(11):1302–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Liang L, Zha Y, Zhu J (2017) A modified super-efficiency DEA model for infeasibility. J Oper Res Soc 60(2):276–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2011) Data envelopment analysis: history, models, and interpretations (2nd edition). In: Cooper W, Seiford L, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 164. Springer, Boston

  • Cordero JM, Polo C, Salinas-Jimenez J (2020) Subjective well-being and heterogeneous contexts: a cross-national study using semi-nonparametric frontier methods. J Happiness Stud 2021(22):867–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, De Groot R, Sutton P, Van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Hart M, Kubiszewski I, Posner S, Talberth J (2018) Lessons from the history of GDP in theeffort to create better indicators of prosperity, well-being, and happiness. In: Routledge handbook of sustainability indicators. Routledge, pp 117–123

  • Dardha E, Rogge N (2020) How’s life in your region? Measuring regional material living conditions, quality of life and subjective well-being in OECD countries using a robust, conditional benefit-of-the-doubt model. Soc Indic Res 151(3):1015–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decancq K, Lugo MA (2013) Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: an overview. Econ Rev 32(1):7–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirci A, Yakut E, Gunduz M (2013) Measurement of the economical and social efficiency of OECD countries by means of data envelopment analysis and artificial neural network. Int J Bus Soc Sci 4(16)

  • Durand M (2015) The OECD better life initiative: How’s life? and the measurement of well-being. Rev Income Wealth 61(1):4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dynan K, Sheiner L (2018) GDP as a measure of economic well-being. Hutchins Center of Fiscal & Monetary Policy at Brookings, Working Paper n. 43

  • Easterlin RA (1974) Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In: Davis PA, Reder MW (eds) Nations and households in economic growth: essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz. Academic Press, New York, pp 89–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin RA (1995) Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? J Econ Behav Organ 27(1):35–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin RA, Angelescu L (2009) Happiness and growth the world over: time series evidence on the happiness-income paradox. IZA Discussion Paper 4060

  • Easterlin RA, Sawangfa O (2009) Happiness and economic growth: does the cross-section predict time trends? Evidence from developing countries. IZA Discussion Paper 4000

  • Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc A 120:253–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehder D, Porter M, Stern S (2018) The empirics of social progress. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, May, vol. 108. Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May 2018), pp 477–482

  • Feldstein M (2017) Underestimating the real growth of GDP, personal income, and productivity. J Econ Perspect 31:145–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey B, Gallus J (2013) Political economy of happiness. Appl Econ 45(30):4205–4211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frugoli PA, Almeida C, Agostinho F, Giannetti BF, Huisingh D (2015) Can measures of well-being and progress help societies to achieve sustainable development? J Clean Prod 90:370–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier C, Gilomen B (2016) Business models for sustainability: energy efficiency in urban districts. Organ Environ 29(1):124–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannetti BF, Agostinho F, Almeida CMVB, Huisingh D (2015) A review of limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human wellbeing and to manage eco-system functionality. J Clean Prod 87:11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giménez V, Ayvar-Campos FJ, Navarro-Chàvez JCL (2017) Efficiency in the generation of social welfare in Mexico: a proposal in the presence of bad outputs. Omega 43–52

  • Giovannini E, Rondinella T (2018) Going beyond GDP: theoretical approaches. In: Handbook of research on economic and social well-being. Edward Elgar Publishing

  • Golany B, Thore S (1997) The economic and social performance of nations: efficiency and returns to scale. Socioecon Plan Sci 31(3):191–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez E, Carcaba A, Ventura J (2011) The importance of the geographic level of analysis in the assessment of the quality of life: the case of Spain. Soc Indic Res 102(2):209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall J, Giovannini E, Morrone A, Ranuzzi G (2010) A framework to measure the progress of societies. OECD Statistics Working Papers 5, OECD Publishing

  • Hansson SO (2004) Welfare, justice, and Pareto efficiency. Ethical Theor Moral Pract 7:361–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasan H (2019) Confidence in subjective evaluation of human well-being in Sen’s capabilities perspetive. J Happiness Stud 20:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto A, Ishikawa H (1993) Using DEA to evaluate the state of society as measured by multiple social indicators. Socioecon Plan Sci 27(4):257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto A, Kodama M (1997) Has liveability of Japan gotten better for 1956–1990? A DEA approach. Soc Indic Res 40:359–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzius J (2017) Update on productivity measurement. Goldman Sachs U.S. Daily (August 15)

  • Howell RT, Kern ML, Lyubomirsky S (2007) Health benefits: meta analytically determining the impact of well-being on objective health outcomes. Health Psychol Rev 1:83–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh CM (2015) The often overlooked issue of statistical power: this and other issues regarding assessing importance weighting in quality of life measures. Soc Sci Res 50:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insch A, Florek M (2008) A great place to live, work and play: conceptualising place satisfaction in the case of a city’s residents. J Place Manag Dev 1(2):138–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. Routledge

  • Jacobs M (2012) Green growth: Economic theory and political discourse (No. 92). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London

  • Jacobsen R (1991) Economic efficiency and the quality of life. J Bus Ethics 10:201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaramillo ET, Willging CE, Haozous E, Verney SP, Lujan E, Page-Reeves J (2019) Speak your mind and heart in the Indian way: wellness and agency among American Indian Elders. Well-being as a multidimensional concept: understanding connections among culture, community, and health. Lexington Books of Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 193–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones CI, Klenow PJ (2016) Beyond GDP? Welfare across countries and time. Am Econ Rev 106(9):2426–2457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley J, Evans MDR (2017a) The new income inequality and well-being paradigm: inequality has no effect on happiness in rich nations and normal times, varied effects in extraordinary circumstances, increases happiness in poor nations, and interacts with individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, politics, and expectations for the future. Soc Sci Res 62:39–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley J, Evans MDR (2017b) Societal inequality and individual subjective well-being: results from 68 societies and over 200,000 individuals, 1981–2008. Soc Sci Res 62:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight KW, Rosa EA (2011) The environmental efficiency of well-being: a cross-national analysis. Soc Sci Res 40(3):931–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans TC (1951) An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Koopmans TC (ed) Activity analysis of production and allocation. Cowles commission, for research in economics, vol 13. Wiley and Sons

  • Koronakos G, Smirlis Y, Sotiros D, Despotis DK (2020) Assessment of OECD Better Life Index by incorporating public opinion. Socioecon Plan Sci 70:100699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krysiak FC (2009) Sustainability and its relation to efficiency under uncertainty. Econ Theor 41:297–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee CC (2009) Analysis of overall technical efficiency, pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency in the medium-sized audit firms. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):11156–11171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei X, Shen Y, Smith JP, Zhou G (2018) Life satisfaction in China and consumption and income inequalities. Househ Econ Rev 16:75–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell CK, Pastor JT (1995) Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Oper Res Lett 18(3):147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggino F (2015) Subjective well-being and subjective aspects of well-being: methodology and theory. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali 123(1):89–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahlberg B, Obersteiner M (2001) Remeasuring the HDI by data envelopement analysis. Available at SSRN 1999372

  • Mazziotta M, Pareto A (2018) Measuring well-being over time: the adjusted Mazziotta-Pareto index versus other non-compensatory indices. Soc Indic Res 967–976

  • Michalos AC, Smale B, Labonte R, Muharjarine N, Scott K, Moore K et al (2011) The Canadian index of wellbeing. Canadian Index of Wellbeing, Waterloo

  • Mizobuchi H (2014) Measuring world better life frontier: a composite indicator for OECD Better Life Index. Soc Indic Res 118(3):987–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moutinho V, Madaleno M, Robaina M (2017) The economic and environmental efficiency assessment in EU cross-country: evidence from DEA and quantile regression approach. Ecol Ind 78:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murias P, Martinez F, Miguel C (2006) An economic well-being index for the Spanish provinces: a data envelopment analysis approach. Soc Indic Res 77(3):395–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD, Tobin J (1973) Is growth obsolete? The measurement of economic and social performance. Stud Income Wealth 38:509–532

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) Compendium of OECD well-being indicators. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013) Better life index. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/

  • OECD (2020) How’s life? 2020: measuring well-being. OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patrizii V, Pettini A, Resce G (2017) The cost of well-being. Soc Indic Res 133(3):985–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce D, Hamilton K, Atkinson G (1996) Measuring sustainable development: progress on indicators. Environ Dev Econ 1(1):85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontarollo N, Orellana M, Segovia J (2020) The determinants of subjective well-being in a developing country: the Ecuadorian case. J Happiness Stud 21:3007–3035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J (2013) The consumption of a finite planet: well-being, convergence, divergence and the nascent green economy. Environ Resour Econ 55(4):475–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J, Barton J, Pervez Bharucha Z, Bragg R, Pencheon D, Wood C, Depledge MH (2016) Improving health and well-being independently of GDP: dividends of greener and prosocial economies. Int J Environ Health Res 26(1):11–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugno M (2014) Scitovsky’s the Joyless economy and the economics of happiness. Eur J Hist Econ Thought 21(2):278–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punzo G, Trunfio M, Castellano R, Buonocore M (2022) A multi-modelling approach for assessing sustainable tourism. Soc Indic Res 1–45

  • Ravazzini L, Chavez-Juarez F (2018) Which inequality makes people dissatisfied with their lives? Evidence of the link between life satisfaction and inequalities. Soc Indic Res 137(3):1119–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard S, Lovell CK, Thijssen GJ (2000) Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables; estimated with SFA and DEA. Eur J Oper Res 121(2):287–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau J, Semple JH (1995) Radii of classification preservation in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 46(8):943–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saisana M, d’Hombres B, Saltelli A (2011) Rickety numbers: volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Res Policy 40(1):165–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scitovsky T (1976) The joyless economy: An inquiry into human satisfaction and consumer dissatisfaction

  • Scitovsky T (1986) Human desires and economic satisfaction. Essays on the Frontiers of economics. New York University Press, New York, pp 183–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiford LM, Zhu J (1999a) An investigation of returns to scale in data envelopment analysis. Omega 27(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiford LM, Zhu J (1999b) Infeasibility of super efficiency data envelopment analysis models. INFOR: Inf Syst Oper Res 37(2):174–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen (1985) Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984. J Philos 82(4):169–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen (1990) Development as capability expansion. In: The community development reader, pp 41–58

  • Sexton TR, Silkman RH, Hogan AJ (1986) Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions. In: Measuring efficiency: an assessment of data envelopment analysis, pp 73–105

  • Sirgy MJ, Grace BY, Lee DJ, Wei S, Huang MW (2012) Does marketing activity contribute to a society’s well-being? The role of economic efficiency. J Bus Ethics 107(2):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson B, Wolfers J (2008) Economic growth and subjective well-being: reassessing the Easterlin Paradox. National Bureau of Economic Research

  • Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi JP (2009) Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi JP (2010) Mismeasuring our lives: why GDP doesn’t add up. The New Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Syverson C (2016) Challenges to mismeasurement explanations for the U.S. productivity slowdown. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 21974

  • Thiry G (2015) Beyond GDP: conceptual grounds of quantification. The case of the index of economic well-being (IEWB). Soc Indic Res 121(2):313–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ueda T, Hoshiai Y (1997) Application of principal component analysis for parsimonious summarization of DEA inputs and/or outputs. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 40(4):466–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulanowicz RE, Goerner SJ, Lietaer B, Gomez R (2009) Quantifying sustainability: resilience, efficiency and the return of information theory. Ecol Complex 6(1):27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme—UNDP (1990) Human development report 1990. New York Oxford University Press

  • Van-Praag B (2011) Well-being inequality and reference groups: an agenda for new research. J Econ Inequal 9(1):111–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vondrovà A, Valach M (2014) Decision making and quality of life. In: Human capital without borders: knowledge and learning for quality of life. Management, knowledge and learning, international conference

  • World Bank (2012) Inclusive green growth: the pathway to sustainable development. The World Bank.

  • World Bank (2018) Poverty and shared prosperity 2018: Piecing together the poverty puzzle

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future

  • Zaim O, Färe R, Grosskopf S (2001) An economic approach to achievement and improvement indexes. Soc Indic Res 56(1):91–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J (2001) Multidimensional quality of life measure with an application to fortune’s best cities. Socioecon Plan Sci 35(4):263–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Quantitative Studies, University of Naples Parthenope, Via Generale Parisi 13, 80132, Naples, Italy

    Rosalia Castellano

  2. Department of Economic and Legal Studies, University of Naples Parthenope, Via Generale Parisi 13, 80132, Naples, Italy

    Gabriella De Bernardo & Gennaro Punzo

Authors
  1. Rosalia Castellano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriella De Bernardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gennaro Punzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gennaro Punzo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors did not receive support from any organisation for the submitted work. The authors declare that the submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any form or language and that all ethical rules have been respected. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 

Table 6 Comparison between ‘Our BLI (from DEA) and BLI with equal weights for each dimension
Full size table

6,

Table 7 DEA-CCR (technical efficiency) with constant returns-to-scale—OECD countries
Full size table

7 and

Table 8 DEA-CCR (social efficiency) with constant returns-to-scale—OECD countries
Full size table

8.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castellano, R., De Bernardo, G. & Punzo, G. Well-being in OECD countries: an assessment of technical and social efficiency using data envelopment analysis. Int Rev Econ 70, 141–176 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-023-00413-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-023-00413-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation