The technical efficiency performance of the higher education systems based on data envelopment analysis with an illustration for the Spanish case
It is important for policymakers and managers of higher education institutions knowing how well their universities are operating. This article aimed to show that data envelopment analysis (DEA) can be an excellent benchmarking instrument in higher education. First, by using several inputs and outputs at the institutional level, DEA can identify technically efficient institutions that may work as a benchmark in the sector becoming a reliable tool for ranking universities. Second, a bootstrapped–truncated regression allows us to understand the factors affecting technical efficiency of the institutions under evaluation. The case of Spanish public universities is taken as an example to verify the usefulness of the proposed methods. Our empirical strategy was based on a two-stage procedure to evaluate their internal efficiency in the provision of teaching and research. In the first stage, we estimated a technical efficiency score for each university. The average efficiency among Spanish universities was about 92%. In the second stage, we regressed the efficiency scores against a set of covariates to investigate their association with the level of university (in)efficiency. We found that universities with a higher percentage of grantees tend to be less inefficient, and a higher percentage of academics with tenure enhances the productive efficiency of the Spanish higher education sector. Finally, we computed Spearman’s rank correlations between DEA efficiency scores and the classification of Spanish institutions in university rankings such as the SCImago and Shanghai rankings. The results revealed that the ranking positions given by DEA scores to Spanish universities matched their positions in recognized rankings.
KeywordsHigher education policy Data envelopment analysis Benchmarking Bootstrapped–truncated regression University rankings
JEL ClassificationD22 I23 C50
- Agasisti, T., & Wolszczak-Derlacz, J. (2014). Exploring universities’ efficiency differentials between countries in a multi-year perspective: An application of bootstrap DEA and Malmquist index to Italy and Poland, 2001–2011 (IRLE Working Paper No. 113-14). Retrieved from http://irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/113-14.pdf.
- Cave, M. (1997). The use of performance indicators in higher education: A critical analysis of developing practice. London: Kingsley.Google Scholar
- Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O’Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhongyang, Z. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review, 84(1), 66–83.Google Scholar
- Fried, H. O., Lovell, C. A. K., & Schmidt, S. S. (Eds.). (2008). The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersæer, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 112–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Halkos, G., Tzeremes, N. G., & Kourtzidis, S. A. (2012). Measuring public owned university departments’ efficiency: A bootstrapped DEA approach. Journal of Economics and Econometrics, 55(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
- Johnes, J. (2016). Performance indicators and rankings in higher education. In R. Barnett, P. Temple & P. Scott (Eds.), Valuing higher education: An appreciation of the work of Gareth Williams (Ch. 4). London: UCL IOE Press.Google Scholar
- Johnes, J., & Taylor, J. (1990). Performance indicators in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Krahn, H., & Bowlby, J. W. (1997). Good teaching and satisfied university graduates. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 27(2/3), 157–179.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2017). Benchmarking higher education system performance: Conceptual framework and data. Enhancing higher education system performance. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Sheil, T. (2016). Managing expectations. An Australian perspective on the impact and challenges of adopting a university rankings narrative. In M. Yudkevich, P. G. Altbach, & L. E. Rumbley (Eds.), The global academic rankings game. Changing institutional policy, practice, and academic life (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Tauchmann, H. (2016). SIMARWILSON: Stata module to perform Simar & Wilson efficiency analysis. Statistical Software Components. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s458156.html.
- Thanassoulis, E., De Witte, K., Johnes, J., Johnes, G., Karagiannis, G., & Portela, C. S. (2016). Applications of data envelopment analysis in education. In J. Zhu (Ed.), Data envelopment analysis: A handbook of empirical studies and applications (pp. 367–438). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhu, J. (Ed.). (2016). Data envelopment analysis: A handbook of empirical studies and applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar