Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 151–161 | Cite as

Joint estimation of technology choice and technical efficiency: an application to organic and conventional dairy farming

  • Subal C. Kumbhakar
  • Efthymios G. Tsionas
  • Timo Sipiläinen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper proposes an econometric framework for joint estimation of technology and technology choice/adoption decision. The procedure takes into account the endogeneity of technology choice, which is likely to depend on inefficiency. Similarly, output from each technology depends on inefficiency. The effect of the dual role of inefficiency is estimated using a single-step maximum likelihood method. The proposed model is applied to a sample of conventional and organic dairy farms in Finland. The main findings are: the conventional technology is more productive, ceteris paribus; organic farms are, on average, less efficient technically than conventional farms; both efficiency and subsidy are found to be driving forces behind adoption of organic technology.

Keywords

Production function Inefficiency Endogeneity Maximum likelihood 

JEL Classifications

C23 D24 D83 O30 Q12 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bravo-Ureta BE, Rieger L (1991) Dairy farm efficiency measurement using stochastic frontiers and neoclassical duality. Am J Agric Econ 73:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Greene WH (1993) The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 68–119Google Scholar
  3. Greene WH (2001) New developments in the estimation of stochastic frontier models with panel data. Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. Greene WH (2003) Simulated likelihood estimation of the normal-gamma stochastic frontier function. J Prod Anal 19:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grönroos J, Seppälä J, Voutilainen P, Seuri P, Koikkalainen K (2006) Energy use in conventional and organic milk and rye bread production in Finland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 117(2–3):109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hallam D, Machado F (1996) Efficiency analysis with panel data: a study of Portuguese dairy farms. Eur Rev Agric Econ 23:79–93Google Scholar
  7. Hole DG, Perkins AJ, Wilson JD, Alexander IH, Grice PV, Evans AD (2005) Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol Conserv 122:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jondrow J, Lovell CAK, Materov I, Schmidt P (1982) On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production model. J Econometrics 19:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumbhakar SC, Ghosh S, McGuckin JT (1991) A generalized production frontier approach for estimating determinants of inefficiency in U.S. dairy farms. J Bus Econ Stat 9:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumbhakar SC, Lovell CAK (2000) Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Nielsen AH, Kristensen IS (2005) Nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses on Danish dairy and pig farms in relation to farm characteristics. Livest Prod Sci 96:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Orea L, Kumbhakar SC (2004) Efficiency measurement using a latent class stochastic frontier model. Empir Econ 29:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oude Lansink A, Pietola K, Bäckman S (2002) Efficiency and productivity of conventional and organic farms in Finland 1994–1997. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29(1):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pietola K, Oude Lansink A (2001) Farmer response to policies promoting organic farming technologies in Finland. Eur Rev Agric Econ 28:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reinhard S (1999) Econometric analysis of economic and environmental efficiency of Dutch dairy farms. PhD Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  16. Ricci Maccarini E, Zanoli A (2004) Technical efficiency and economic performances of organic and conventional livestock farms in Italy. Paper presented in 91st EAAE on 24.–25.9.2004, Crete, Greece. 28 pGoogle Scholar
  17. Sipiläinen T, Oude Lansink A (2005) Learning in organic farming—an application of Finnish dairy farms. Paper presented in the XIth Congress of the EAAE, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 24–27, 2005Google Scholar
  18. Stefanou SE, Saxena S (1988) Education, experience, and allocative efficiency: a dual approach. Am J Agric Econ 70(2):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tsionas EG, Papadogonas T (2006) Firm exit and technical inefficiency. Empir Econ 31:535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tsionas EG, Greene WH, Kumbhakar SC (2006) Non-Gaussian stochastic frontier models, working paper.Google Scholar
  21. Tzouvelekas V, Panzios CJ, Fotopoulos C (2001) Technical efficiency of alternative farming systems: the case of Greek organic and conventional olive-growing farms. Food Policy 26:549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weersink A, Turvey CG, Godah A (1990) Decomposition measures of technical efficiency for Ontario dairy farms. Can J Agric Econ 38:439–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subal C. Kumbhakar
    • 1
  • Efthymios G. Tsionas
    • 2
  • Timo Sipiläinen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsState University of New YorkBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  3. 3.Agrifood Research Finland, MTT Economic ResearchHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations