Advertisement

Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 219–230 | Cite as

One-stage estimation of the effects of operational conditions and practices on productive performance: asymptotically normal and efficient, root-n consistent StoNEZD method

Article

Abstract

Understanding the effects of operational conditions and practices on productive efficiency can provide valuable economic and managerial insights. The conventional approach is to use a two-stage method where the efficiency estimates are regressed on contextual variables representing the operational conditions. The main problem of the two-stage approach is that it ignores the correlations between inputs and contextual variables. To address this shortcoming, we build on the recently developed regression interpretation of data envelopment analysis (DEA) to develop a new one-stage semi-nonparametric estimator that combines the nonparametric DEA-style frontier with a regression model of the contextual variables. The new method is referred to as stochastic semi-nonparametric envelopment of z variables data (StoNEZD). The StoNEZD estimator for the contextual variables is shown to be statistically consistent under less restrictive assumptions than those required by the two-stage DEA estimator. Further, the StoNEZD estimator is shown to be unbiased, asymptotically efficient, asymptotically normally distributed, and converge at the standard parametric rate of order n −1/2. Therefore, the conventional methods of statistical testing and confidence intervals apply for asymptotic inference. Finite sample performance of the proposed estimators is examined through Monte Carlo simulations.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis Two-stage method Partial linear model 

JEL Classification

C14 C51 D24 

References

  1. Afriat SN (1967) The construction of a utility function from expenditure data. Int Econ Rev 8:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afriat SN (1972) Efficiency estimation of production functions. Int Econ Rev 13(3):568–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aigner D, Lovell CAK, Schmidt P (1977) Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J Econ 6:21–37Google Scholar
  4. Banker RD, Natarajan R (2008) Evaluating contextual variables affecting productivity using data envelopment analysis. Oper Res 56(1):48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen X (2007) Large sample sieve estimation of semi-nonparametric models. In: Heckman JJ, Lleamer EE (eds) Chapter 76 in Handbook of econometrics, vol 6B, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  6. Estelle SM, Johnson AL, Ruggiero J (2010) Three-stage DEA models for incorporating exogenous inputs. Comput Oper Res 37(6):1087–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greene WH (2007) Econometric analysis, 6th edn edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  8. Groeneboom P, Jongbloed G, Wellner JA (2001) A canonical process for estimation of convex functions: the “invelope” of integrated Brownian motion plus t(4). Ann Stat 29(6):1620–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gstach D (1998) Another approach to data envelopment analysis in noisy environments: DEA+. J Prod Anal 9(2):161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall M, Winsten C (1959) The ambiguous notion of efficiency. Econ J 69(273):71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanson DL, Pledger G (1976) Consistency in concave regression. Ann Stat 4(6):1038–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hildreth C (1954) Pont estimates of ordinates of concave functions. J Am Stat Assoc 49(267):598–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson AL, Kuosmanen T (2010) On one-stage and two-stage DEA estimation of the effects of contextual variables. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuosmanen T (2006) Stochastic nonparametric envelopment of data: combining virtues of SFA and DEA in a unified framework. MTT discussion papers, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuosmanen T (2008) Representation theorem for convex nonparametric least squares. Econ J 11:308–325Google Scholar
  16. Kuosmanen T, Johnson AL (2010) Data envelopment analysis as nonparametric least squares regression. Oper Res 58(1):149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuosmanen T, Johnson AL (2011) Stochastic axiomatic estimation of joint production: does competition affect the performance of the railroad firm? Working paperGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuosmanen T, Kortelainen M (2011) Stochastic non-smooth envelopment of data: semi-parametric frontier estimation subject to shape constraints. J Product Anal (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Kuosmanen T, Cherchye L, Sipilainen T (2006) The law of one price in data envelopment analysis: restricting weight flexibility across firms. Eur J Oper Res 170(3):735–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li S-K, Ng YC (1995) Measuring the productive efficiency of a group of firms. Int Adv Econ Res 1(4):377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacKinnon JG, White H (1985) Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. J Econ 29(3):305–325Google Scholar
  22. Meeusen W, van den Broek J (1977) Efficiency estimation from Cobb–Douglas production function with composed error. Int Econ Rev 8:435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ray SC (1988) Data envelopment analysis, nondiscretionary inputs and efficiency: an alternative interpretation. Socioecon Plann Sci 22(4):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ray SC (1991) Resource-use efficiency in public schools: a study of Connecticut data. Manage Sci 37(12):1620–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simar L, Wilson PW (2007) Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econ 136(1):31–64Google Scholar
  26. Simar L, Wilson PW (2010) Two-stage DEA: caveat emptor. Technical report #10045, Institut de Statistique, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. http://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ISpub/tr/2010/TR10045.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2010
  27. Timmer CP (1971) Using a probabilistic frontier production function to measure technical efficiency. J Polit Econ 79:767–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang HJ, Schmidt P (2002) One-step and two-step estimation of the effects of exogenous variables on technical efficiency levels. J Prod Anal 18(2):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.School of EconomicsAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations