Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 149–165 | Cite as

DEA meets Picasso: The impact of auction houses on the hammer price

  • Finn R. FørsundEmail author
  • Roberto Zanola


Employing a hedonic price approach within a framework of central tendencies no conclusive results about the impact of auction houses on final prices of art objects have been found. In order to focus on auction houses as a unit we have applied a benchmarking technique, DEA, developed for efficiency studies. New performance indicators are developed and calculated giving an insight into auction house differences impossible to obtain using hedonic price approach. The performance indicators may also be regarded as quality indicators assuming perfect arbitrage leads to the same unobservable quality of art object obtaining the same price.


DEA Picasso painting Auction house Performance measure Efficiency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agnello, R.J. and R.K. Pierce. (2002). “Investment Returns and Risk for Art: Evidence from Auctions of American Paintings.” Eastern Economic Review, 28(4), 443–464.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, P. and N.C. Petersen. (1993). “A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis.”Management Science, 39, 1261–1264.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R.C. (1974). “Paintings as Investment.” Economic Inquiry, 12, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashenfelter, O. and K. Graddy. (2003). “Auctions and the Price of Art.” Journal of Economic Literature, 41(3), 763–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banker, R.D., A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper. (1984). “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies.” Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buelens, N. and V. Ginsburgh. (1993). “Revisiting Baumol’s ‘Art as Floating Crap Game’.” European Economic Review, 37, 1351–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Candela, G. and A.E. Scorcu. (1997). “A Price Index for Art Market Auctions. An Application to the Italian Market of Modern and Contemporary Oil Paintings.” Journal of Cultural Economics, 21(3), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chanel, O., L.A. Gérard-Varet, and V. Ginsburgh. (1996). “The Relevance of Hedonic Price Indices.” Journal of Cultural Economics, 20, 1–24.Google Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. (1978). “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.” European Journal of Operations Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, W.W., L.M. Seiford, and K. Tone. (2000). Data Envelopment Analysis. A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London, pp. 193–197.Google Scholar
  11. Czujack, C. (1997). “Picasso Paintings at Auction, 1963–1994.” Journal of Cultural Economics, 21, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrell, M.J. (1957). “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 120 (III), 253–281.Google Scholar
  13. Frey, B.S. and W.W. Pommerehene. (1989). Muses and Markets; Explorations in the Economics of the Arts. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Førsund, F.R. (2002). “Categorical Variables in DEA.” International Journal of Business and Economics, 21(1), 31–41.Google Scholar
  15. Førsund, F.R. and R. Zanola (2006). “The Art of Benchmarking: Picasso Prints and Auction House Performance.” Applied Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  16. Locatelli-Biey, M. and R. Zanola. (2002). “The Market for Sculptures: An Adjacent Year Regression Index.” Journal of Cultural Economics.Google Scholar
  17. Pesando, J.E. (1993). “Art as an Investment: The Market for Modern Prints.” American Economic Review, 83, 1075–1089.Google Scholar
  18. Renneboog, L. and T. Van Houtte. (2002). “The Monetary Appreciation of Paintings: From Realism to Magritte.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 26, 331–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stein, J.P. (1977). “The Monetary Appreciation of Paintings.” Journal of Political Economy, 85, 1021–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Torgersen, A.M., F.R. Førsund, and S.A.C. Kittelsen. (1996). “Slack-Adjusted Efficiency Measures and Ranking of Efficient Units.” Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7(4), 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tulkens, H. and P. van den Eeckaut. (1995). “Non-Parametric Efficiency, Progress, and Regress Measures for Panel Data: Methodological Aspects.” European Journal of Operational Research, 80, 474–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Public Policy and Public ChoiceUniversity of Eastern PiedmontNovaraItaly

Personalised recommendations