In the early 1980’s Kopp and Diewert proposed a popular method to decompose cost efficiency into allocative and technical efficiency for parametric functional forms based on the radial approach initiated by Farrell. We show that, relying on recently proposed homogeneity and duality results, their approach is unnecessary for self-dual homothetic production functions, while it is inconsistent in the non-homothetic case. By stressing that for homothetic technologies the radial distance function can be correctly interpreted as a technical efficiency measure, since allocative efficiency is independent of the output level and radial input reductions leave it unchanged, we contend that for non-homothetic technologies this is not the case because optimal input demands depend on the output targeted by the firm, as does the inequality between marginal rates of substitution and market prices—allocative inefficiency. We demonstrate that a correct definition of technical efficiency corresponds to the directional distance function because its flexibility ensures that allocative efficiency is kept unchanged through movements in the input production possibility set when solving technical inefficiency, and therefore the associated cost reductions can be solely—and rightly—ascribed to technical-engineering-improvements. The new methodology allowing for a consistent decomposition of cost inefficiency is illustrated resorting to simple examples of non-homothetic production functions.
Non-homotheticity Technical efficiency Allocative efficiency Directional distance function
C61 D21 D24
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We would like to express our gratitude to two anonymous referees for their helpful comments, as well as to the Spanish Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness for supporting this research under grant MTM2013-43903-P.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Aigner DJT, Chu SF (1968) On estimating the industry production function. Am Econ Rev 58(4):826–839Google Scholar
Aparicio J, Pastor JT, Zofío JL (2015) How to properly decompose economic efficiency using technical and allocative criteria with non-homothetic DEA technologies. Eur J Oper Res 240:882–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aparicio J, Pastor JT, Zofío JL (2017) Can Farrell’s allocative efficiency be generalized by the directional distance function approach? Eur J Oper Res 257:345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackorby C, Diewert WE (1979) Expenditure functions, local duality, and second order approximations. Econometrica 47(3):579–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogetoft P, Färe R, Obel B (2006) Allocative efficiency of technically inefficient production units. Eur J Oper Res 168:450–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boussemart J-P, Briec W, Leleu H (2010) Linear programming solutions and distance functions under α-returns to scale. J Oper Res Soc 61(8):1297–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boussemart J-P, Briec W, Peypoch N, Tavéra C (2009) α-returns to scale in multi-output technologies. Eur J Oper Res 197(1):332–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1996) Benefit and distance functions. J Econ Theory 70:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1998) Profit, directional distance functions, and nerlovian efficiency. J Optim Theory Appl 98(2):351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers RG, Mitchell T (2001) Homotheticity and non-radial changes. J Prod Anal 15:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2/6:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen LR, Greene WH (1976) Economies of scale in U.S. electric power generation. J Polit Econ 84(4):655–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar