Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 80, Issue 3–4, pp 339–358 | Cite as

Explaining differences in productive efficiency: An application to Belgian municipalities

  • B. de Borger
  • K. Kerstens
  • W. Moesen
  • J. Vanneste
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to measure and explain variations in productive efficiency of municipal governments in Belgium. Technical efficiency is evaluated using a non-parametric method based on the Free Disposal Hull (FDH) reference technology. We first calculate input, output, and graph Farrell efficiency measures for a cross-section of all 589 Belgian municipalities. In a second stage of the analysis we explain the calculated differences in efficiency in terms of variables related to the structural characteristics of municipalities and to the institutional environment.

Keywords

Structural Characteristic Public Finance Technical Efficiency Productive Efficiency Institutional Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, S. and Halvorsen R. (1986). The relative efficiency of public and private firms in a regulated environment: The case of U.S. Electric Utilities.Journal of Public Economics 29(3): 281–294.Google Scholar
  2. Bartel, R. and Schneider, F. (1991). The “Mess” of the public industrial production in Austria: A typical case of public sector inefficiency?Public Choice 68(1–3): 17–40.Google Scholar
  3. Boardman, A. and Vining, A. (1989). Ownership and performance in competitive environments: A comparison of the performance of private, mixed, and state-owned enterprises.Journal of Law and Economics 32(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
  4. Borcherding, T.E., Pommerehne, W.W. and Schneider, F. (1982). Comparing the efficiency of private and public production: The evidence from five countries.Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 42(S2): 127–156.Google Scholar
  5. De Borger, B., Kerstens, K., Moesen, W. and Vanneste, J. (1992).A non-parametric non-convex approach to technical efficiency. University of Antwerp (SESO-report 92/276).Google Scholar
  6. De Grauwe, P. (1985).The growth of the public sector in Belgium under center-right and center-left governments. Leuven (KUL, CES-Research Paper 49).Google Scholar
  7. Deller, S.C. (1992). Production efficiency in local government: a parametric approach.Public Finance 47(1): 32–44.Google Scholar
  8. Deprins, D., Simar, L. and Tulkens, H. (1984). Measuring labor-efficiency in post offices. In M. Marchand, e.a. (Eds.),The performance of public enterprises: concepts and measurement, 243–267. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S. and Lovell, C. (1985).The measurement of efficiency of production. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S. and Logan, J. (1985). The relative performance of publicly-owned and privately-owned electric utilities.Journal of Public Economics 26(1): 89–106.Google Scholar
  11. Farrell, M. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120 (Series A): 253–290.Google Scholar
  12. Fisk, D. (1983).Measuring productivity in state and local government. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. Førsund, F., Lovell, C. and Schmidt, P. (1980). A survey of frontier production functions and of their relationship to efficiency measurement.Journal of Econometrics 13(1): 5–25.Google Scholar
  14. Hamilton, B.W. (1983). The flypaper effect and other anomalies.Journal of Public Economics 22(2–3): 347–361.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, K. and Chang, S. (1990). The relative efficiency of city manager and mayor-council forms of government.Southern Economic Journal 57(1): 167–177.Google Scholar
  16. Hulten, C. (1984). Productivity change in state and local governments.Review of Economics and Statistics 66(2): 256–266.Google Scholar
  17. Levitt, M. and Joyce, M. (1987).The growth and efficiency of public spending. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lovell, C.A.K. (1992). Production frontiers and productive efficiency. In Fried, Lovell and Schmidt (Eds.),The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and Applications, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lovell, C., Walters, L. and Wood, L. (1990).Stratified models of education production using DEA and regression analysis. Working paper 90-5. Department of Economics, Univ. of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, J. and Page, J. (1983). The impact of subsidies on X-efficiency in LDC industry: theory and an empirical test.Review of Economics and Statistics 55(4): 608–617.Google Scholar
  21. McDonald, J. and Moffitt, R. (1980). The uses of tobit analysis.Review of Economics and Statistics 62(2): 318–321.Google Scholar
  22. Mueller, D. (1989).Public choice II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Niskanen, W.A. (1974).Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  24. Pestieau, P. and Tulkens, H. (1990).Assessing the performance of public sector activities: some recent evidence from the productive efficiency viewpoint. CORE-discussion paper 9060. Louvain-la-Neuve: U.C.L.Google Scholar
  25. Pudney, S. (1989).Modelling individual choice: the econometrics of corners, kinks, and holes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Rhodes, E. and Southwick, L. (1989).Comparison of university performance differences over time. Working Paper. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  27. Russell, R. (1988). On the axiomatic approach to the measurement of technical efficiency. In W. Eichhorn (Ed.),Measurement in economics, 207–217. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Ruud, P.A. (1984). Tests of specification in econometrics.Econometric Reviews 3: 211–242.Google Scholar
  29. Schwab, R.M. and Oates, W.E. (1991). Community composition and the provision of local public goods.Journal of Public Economics 44(2): 217–237.Google Scholar
  30. Seiford, L. and Thrall, R. (1990). Recent developments in DEA: the mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis.Journal of Econometrics 46(1–2): 7–38.Google Scholar
  31. Silkman, R. and Young, D.R. (1982). X-efficiency and state formula grants.National Tax Journal 35(3): 383–397.Google Scholar
  32. Spann, R. (1977). Public versus private provision of governmental services. In T. Borcherding (Ed.),Budgets and bureaucrats: the sources of government growth, 71–89. Durham: Duke U.P.Google Scholar
  33. Tulkens, H. (1990).Non-parametric efficiency analyses in four service activities: retail banking, municipalities, courts and urban transit. CORE-discussion paper 9050. Louvain-la-Neuve, U.C.L.Google Scholar
  34. Vanden Eeckaut, P., Tulkens, H. and Jamar, M. (1991).A study of cost-efficiency and returns to scale for 235 municipalities in Belgium. CORE-discussion paper 9158. Louvain-la-Neuve, U.C.L.Google Scholar
  35. Zieschang, K. (1984). An extended Farrell technical efficiency measure,Journal of Economic Theory 33(2): 387–396.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. de Borger
    • 1
  • K. Kerstens
    • 2
  • W. Moesen
    • 3
    • 1
  • J. Vanneste
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.KUBBrussels
  3. 3.KULLeuven

Personalised recommendations