Empirical Economics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 119–137 | Cite as

Analysis of product efficiency in the Korean automobile market from a consumer’s perspective

  • Inha Oh
  • Jeong-Dong Lee
  • Seogwon Hwang
  • Almas Heshmati
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study we develop and describe a conceptual and methodological framework to measure technical and allocative efficiency at the product level considering consumer choice, which encompasses overall efficiency. Empirically, we combined data envelopment analysis and a discrete choice model in order to measure efficiency levels. The suggested framework is applied to the Korean automobile market. The relationship between the level of efficiency and market performance is discussed in terms of market share.

Keywords

DEA Product efficiency Consumers utility Automobile market South Korea 

JEL Classification

C14 C25 D13 D61 L92 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2002) Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energ Policy 30: 107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse J-F (1992) Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry S (1994) Estimating discrete choice models of product differentiation. Rand J Econ 25: 242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (1995) Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica 63: 841–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (1999) Voluntary export restraints on automobiles: evaluating a trade policy. Am Econ Rev 89: 400–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper WW, Park KS, Pastor JT (1999) RAM: a range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models, and relations to other models and measures in DEA. J Prod Anal 11: 5–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Borger B, Kerstens K (1996) Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: a comprehensive analysis of FDH, DEA and econometric approaches. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26: 145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deprins D, Simar L, Tulkens H (1984) Measuring labor efficiency in post offices. In: Marchand M, Pestieau P, Tulkens H (eds) The performance of public enterprises: concepts and measurement. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrel MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J Roy Stat Soc 120: 253–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandez-Castro AS, Smith PC (2002) Lancaster’s characteristics approach revisited: product selection using non-parametric methods. Manage Decis Econ 23: 83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halme M, Joro T, Korhonen P, Salo S, Wallenius J (1999) A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 45: 103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaiser U (2002) The effects of website provision on the demand for German women’s magazines. NBER working paper 8806Google Scholar
  13. Koopmans TC (1951) An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Koopmans TC(eds) Activity analysis of production and allocation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Korhonen P, Syrjänen MJ (2005) On the interpretation of value efficiency. J Prod Anal 24: 197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Korhonen P, Soismaa M, Siljämaki A (2002) On the use of value efficiency analysis and some further developments. J Prod Anal 17: 49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74: 132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee J-D, Oh DH, Park CS (2004a) A nonparametric approach to measure the consumption efficiency in the price-characteristic space based on revealed preference theory. In: Paper presented at Asian Pacific productivity conference 2004, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee J-D, Repkine A, Hwang S, Kim T-Y (2004b) Estimating consumers’ willingness to pay for individual quality attributes with DEA. J Oper Res Soc 55: 1064–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee J-D, Hwang S, Kim T-Y (2005) The measurement of consumption efficiency considering discrete choice of consumers. J Prod Anal 23: 65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ley E, Steel MFJ (1996) On the estimation of demand systems through consumption efficiency. Rev Econ Stat 78: 539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McFadden D (1973) Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P(eds) Frontiers in econometric. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. McFadden D (1974) The measurement of urban travel demand. J Public Econ 3: 303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nevo A (2000) A practitioner’s guide to estimation of random-coefficients Logit models of demand. J Econ Manage Strat 9: 513–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Papahristodoulou C (1997) A DEA model to evaluate car efficiency. Appl Econ 29: 1493–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Wojcik C (2000) Alternative models of demand for automobiles. Econ Lett 68: 113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wojcik C (2001) Learning by consumers in the demand for Japanese cars. Rev Int Econ 9: 94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inha Oh
    • 1
  • Jeong-Dong Lee
    • 2
  • Seogwon Hwang
    • 3
  • Almas Heshmati
    • 2
  1. 1.Korea Energy Economics InstituteGyeonggi-doKorea
  2. 2.Technology Management, Economics and Policy Program (TEMEP)Seoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Science and Technology Policy InstituteSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations