Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 201–210

Far out or alone in the crowd: a taxonomy of peers in DEA

  • Dag Fjeld Edvardsen
  • Finn R. Førsund
  • Sverre A. C. Kittelsen
Article

Abstract

A method is presented for classifying strongly efficient units in DEA as interior or exterior, and as self-evaluators or active peers. The exterior strongly efficient units are found by running the enveloping procedure “from below”. There is no firm production-function evidence of the efficiency of exterior self-evaluators. Interior self-evaluators are more likely to have active peers as neighbours in more directions and may therefore represent technology. When performing a second stage regression analysis of efficiency scores, exterior self-evaluators should be removed. The proportion of exterior active peers also provides information on whether the variable specification is supported by the data.

Keywords

Interior and exterior peer Active peer and self-evaluator DEA Referencing zone Nursing homes 

JEL Classifications

C44 C61 D24 I19 L32 

References

  1. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 39(10):1261–1264Google Scholar
  2. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies. Manage Sci 30:1078–1092Google Scholar
  3. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thrall RM (1986) Classifying and characterizing efficiencies and inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Oper Res Lett 5(3):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnes A, Clark CT, Cooper WW, Golany B (1985a) A developmental study of data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the U.S. Air Forces. Ann Oper Res 2:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford L, Stutz J (1985b) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto–Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. J Econom 30:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 measurements. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 243–267Google Scholar
  8. Edvardsen DF, Førsund FR (2003) International benchmarking of electricity distribution utilities. Resour Energy Econ 25:353–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edvardsen DF, Førsund FR, Kittelsen SAC (2003) Far out or alone in the crowd: classification of self-evaluators in DEA. HERO Working Paper 7/2003. Health Economics Research Programme at the University of OsloGoogle Scholar
  10. Edvardsen DF, Førsund FR, Aas E (2000) Effektivitet i pleie- og omsorgssektoren [Efficiency in the nursing- and home care sector]. Rapport 2/2000, Oslo: FrischsenteretGoogle Scholar
  11. Erlandsen E, Førsund FR (2002) Efficiency in the provision of municipal nursing-and home care services: the Norwegian experience. In: Fox KJ (eds) Efficiency in the public sector, chapter 10. Kluwer, Boston/Dordrecht/London, pp 273–300Google Scholar
  12. Färe R, Primont D (1995) Multi output production and duality: theory and applications. Kluwer, Boston/Dordrecht/LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A 120(III):253–281Google Scholar
  14. Førsund FR, Sarafoglou N (2002) On the origins of data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 17:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nerlove M (1965) Estimation and identification of Cobb–Douglas production functions. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Olesen OB, Petersen NC (1996) Indicators of ill-conditioned data sets and model misspecification in data envelopment analysis: an extended facet approach. Manage Sci 42(2):205–219Google Scholar
  17. Seitz WD (1967) Efficiency measures for steam-electric generating plants. Western farm economic association, proceedings 1966, Pullman, Washington, pp 143–151Google Scholar
  18. Seitz WD (1971) Productive efficiency in the steam-electric generating industry. J Polit Econ 79:878–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simar L, Wilson PW (1998) Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric Frontier models. Manage Sci 44:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simar L, Wilson PW (2007) Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econom 136(1):31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Torgersen AM, Førsund FR, Kittelsen SAC (1996) Slack-adjusted efficiency measures and ranking of efficient units. J Prod Anal 7:379–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tulkens H (1993) On FDH efficiency analysis: some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts and urban transit. J Prod Anal 4(1–2):183–210Google Scholar
  23. Wilson PW (1995) Detecting influential observations in data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 6:27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Aas E (2000) På leting etter målefeil – en studie av pleie- og omsorgssektoren [In search of measurement error—a study of the home care and nursing sector]. Notater 2000:10, Statistics Norway, OsloGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dag Fjeld Edvardsen
    • 1
  • Finn R. Førsund
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sverre A. C. Kittelsen
    • 3
  1. 1.SINTEF Building and InfrastructureOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.The Frisch CentreOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations