Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 85–109 | Cite as

The StoNED age: the departure into a new era of efficiency analysis? A monte carlo comparison of StoNED and the “oldies” (SFA and DEA)

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Based on the seminal paper of Farrell (J R Stat Soc Ser A (General) 120(3):253–290, 1957), researchers have developed several methods for measuring efficiency. Nowadays, the most prominent representatives are nonparametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) and parametric stochastic frontier analysis (SFA), both introduced in the late 1970s. Researchers have been attempting to develop a method which combines the virtues—both nonparametric and stochastic—of these “oldies”. The recently introduced Stochastic non-smooth envelopment of data (StoNED) by Kuosmanen and Kortelainen (J Prod Anal 38(1):11–28, 2012) is such a promising method. This paper compares the StoNED method with the two “oldies” DEA and SFA and extends the initial Monte Carlo simulation of Kuosmanen and Kortelainen (J Prod Anal 38(1):11–28, 2012) in several directions. We show, among others, that, in scenarios without noise, the rivalry is still between the “oldies”, while in noisy scenarios, the nonparametric StoNED PL now constitutes a promising alternative to the SFA ML.

Keywords

Efficiency Stochastic non-smooth envelopment of data (StoNED) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) Monte carlo simulation 

JEL Classification

C14 C52 D24 L59 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are deeply indebted to the participants of the 8th Asia-Pacific Productivity Conference (APPC) in Bangkok, Thailand, the 4th Workshop on Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (HAWEPA) in Halle, Germany, the 12th European Workshop on Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (EWEPA) in Verona, Italy, and the 11th IAEE European Conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, for providing valuable comments that have led to a considerable improvement of earlier versions of this paper. Furthermore, we would like to thank Brian Bloch, Finn Førsund, William Greene, Arne und Geraldine Henningsen, Uwe Jensen, Choonjoo Lee, Colin Vance, the editors and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions. The authors are responsible for all errors and omissions.

References

  1. Adler N, Yazhemsky E (2010) Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: PCA-DEA or variable reduction. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afriat SN (1972) Efficiency estimation of production functions. Int Econ Rev 13(3):568–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aigner DJ, Lovell CAK, Schmidt P (1977) Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production models. J Econ 6:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andor M, Hesse F (2011) A Monte Carlo simulation comparing DEA, SFA and two simple approaches to combine efficiency estimates. CAWM Discussion Papers 51, Center of Applied Economic Research Münster (CAWM), University of MünsterGoogle Scholar
  5. Badunenko O, Henderson DJ, Kumbhakar SC (2012) When, where and how to perform efficiency estimation. J Roy Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc) 175(4):863–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30(9):1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banker RD, Gadh VM, Gorr WL (1993) A Monte Carlo comparison of two production frontier estimation methods: Corrected ordinary least squares and data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 67(3):332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banker RD, Cooper WW, Grifell-Tajte E, Pastor JT, Wilson PW, Ley E, Lovell CAK (1994) Validation and generalization of DEA and its uses. TOP 2(2):249–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banker RD, Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Thrall RM, Zhu J (2004) Returns to scale in different DEA models. Eur J Oper Res 154(2):345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Battese GE, Coelli TJ (1988) Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data. J Econ 38(3):387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bauer P, Berger A, Ferrier G, Humphrey D (1998) Consistency conditions for regulatory analysis of financial institutions: a comparison of frontier efficiency methods. J Econ Bus 50(2):85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bogetoft P, Otto L (2011) Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caudill SB, Ford JM (1993) Biases in frontier estimation due to heteroscedasticity. Econ Lett 41(1):17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caudill SB, Ford JM, Gropper DM (1995) Frontier estimation and firm-specific inefficiency measures in the presence of heteroscedasticity. J Bus Econ Stat 13:105–111Google Scholar
  15. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coelli TJ (1995) Estimators and hypothesis tests for a stochastic frontier function: a monte carlo analysis. J Prod Anal 6(4):247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’ Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2005) An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook WD, Seiford LM (2009) Data envelopment analysis (DEA)-Thirty years on. Eur J Oper Res 192(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cordero JM, Pedraja F, Santin D (2009) Alternative approaches to include exogenous variables in DEA measures: a comparison using Monte Carlo. Comput Oper Res 36(10):2699–2706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fan Y, Li Q, Weersink A (1996) Semiparametric estimation of stochastic production frontier models. J Bus Econ Stat 14(4):460–468Google Scholar
  21. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A (General) 120(3):253–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gong B, Sickles RC (1992) Finite sample evidence on the performance of stochastic frontiers and data envelopment analysis using panel data. J Econ 51:259–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene WH (2008) The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried H, Lovell CAK, Schmidt S (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 92–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hadri K (1999) Estimation of a doubly heteroscedastic stochastic frontier cost function. J Bus Econ Stat 17(3):359–363Google Scholar
  25. Hadri K, Guermat C, Whittaker J (2003) Estimation of technical inefficiency effects using panel data and doubly heteroscedastic stochastic production frontiers. Empirical Econ 28(1):203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haney AB, Pollitt MG (2009) Efficiency analysis of energy networks: An international survey of regulators. Energy Policy 37(12):5814–5830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jamasb T, Pollitt MG (2001) Benchmarking and regulation: international electricity experience. Utilities Policy 9:107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jensen U (2005) Misspecification preferred: the sensitivity of inefficiency rankings. J Prod Anal 23:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jondrow J, Lovell CAK, Materov IS, Schmidt P (1982) On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. J Econ 19(3):233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kneip A, Simar L (1996) A general framework for frontier estimation with panel data. J Prod Anal 7:187–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kneip A, Simar L, Wilson PW (2008) Asymptotics and consistent bootstraps for DEA estimators in non-parametric frontier models. Econ Theory 24(6):1663–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumbhakar SC (1997) Efficiency estimation with heteroscedasticity in a panel data model. Appl Econ 29(3):379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumbhakar SC, Lovell CAK (2003) Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Kumbhakar SC, Park BU, Simar L, Tsionas EG (2007) Nonparametric stochastic frontiers: A local maximum likelihood approach. J Econ 137:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuosmanen T (2008) Representation theorem for convex nonparametric least squares. Econ J 11(2):308–325Google Scholar
  36. Kuosmanen T (2012a) Stochastic semi-nonparametric frontier estimation of electricity distribution networks: application of the StoNED method in the Finnish regulatory model. Energy Economics p doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.03.005
  37. Kuosmanen T (2012b) Web site: StoNED Stochastic Nonparametric Envelopment of Data: http://www.nomepre.net/index.php/computations
  38. Kuosmanen T, Kortelainen M (2012) Stochastic non-smooth envelopment of data: semi-parametric frontier estimation subject to shape constraints. J Prod Anal 38(1):11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meeusen W, van den Broeck J (1977) Efficiency estimation from Cobb-Douglas production functions with composed error. Int Econ Rev 18(2):435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mortimer D (2002) Competing Methods for Effciency Measurement: A systematic review of direct DEA vs SFA/DFA comparisons., Centre for Health Program Evaluation (CHPE), Working Paper 136Google Scholar
  41. Olson JA, Schmidt P, Waldman DM (1980) A Monte Carlo study of estimators of stochastic frontier production functions. J Econ 13:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ondrich J, Ruggiero J (2001) Efficiency measurement in the stochastic frontier model. Eur J Oper Res 129(2):434–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perelman S, Santin D (2009) How to generate regularly behaved production data? A Monte Carlo experimentation on DEA scale efficiency meassurement. Eur J Oper Res 199(1):303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Resti A (2000) Efficiency measurement for multi-product industries: A comparison of classic and recent techniques based on simulated data. Eur J Oper Res 121(3):559–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruggiero J (1999) Efficiency estimation and error decomposition in the stochastic frontier model: A Monte Carlo analysis. Eur J Oper Res 115(3):555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simar L, Zelenyuk V (2011) Stochastic FDH/DEA estimatiors for frontier analysis. J Prod Anal 36(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winsten CB (1957) Discussion on Mr. Farrell’s paper. J R Stat Soc Ser A (General) 120(3):282–284Google Scholar
  48. Yu C (1998) The effects of exogenous variables in efficiency measurement - A monte carlo study. Eur J Oper Res 105(3):569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Environment and ResourcesRheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für WirtschaftsforschungEssenGermany
  2. 2.Finance Center MünsterWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMunsterGermany

Personalised recommendations