A Comparative Study of Alternative Approaches to Estimate Productivity

  • Saleem ShaikEmail author
  • Joseph Atwood
Original Article


Theoretically, for single output-single input, annual productivity are expected to be identical across index, non-parametric programming and parametric statistical approaches. The following models within each approach is considered—index (Tornqvist-Theil and Ideal Fisher), the non-parametric programming (Malmquist input, output and graph; Malmquist total factor productivity) and parametric (Input and Output; total factor productivity) regression. Empirically, for single output-single input, this research show differences in annual productivity and productivity growth rate between and within each of the three approaches using Nebraska agriculture data from 1936 to 2004. The annual productivity growth rate from 1936 to 2004 was identical across non-parametric Malmquist output, input, graph and Malmquist total factor productivity, and parametric Malmquist total factor productivity. However annual productivity estimated by parametric Malmquist total factor productivity is identical to Ideal Fisher productivity.


Annual productivity and productivity growth rate Tornqvist-Theil and Ideal fisher index Non-parametric programming Malmquist input, output and graph measures Parametric solow residuals Nebraska agriculture sector data, 1936–2004 

JEL Classification

O3 C6 Q1 



  1. Avkiran, N.K., and B.R. Parker. 2010. Pushing the DEA Research Envelope. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 44 (1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beveren, I.V. 2012. Total Factor Productivity Estimation: A Practical Review. Journal of Economic Surveys 26 (1): 98–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjurek, H. 1996. The Malmquist Total Factor Productivity Index. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 98: 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boles, J.N. 1966. Efficiency Squared—Efficient Computation of Efficiency Indexes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (Western Farm Economics Association), Vol. 39, August 15–17 1966, ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Bressler, R.G. 1966. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (Western Farm Economics Association), Vol. 39, August 15–17 1966, pp 129–136Google Scholar
  6. Capalbo, S.M., and J.M. Antle. 1988. Agricultural Productivity: Measurement and Explanation. Washington: Resource for the Future.Google Scholar
  7. Caves, D.W., L.R. Christensen, and W.E. Diewert. 1982. The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input. Output and Productivity, Econometrica 50: 1393–1414.Google Scholar
  8. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operations Research 2: 429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, W., and L.M. Seiford. 2009. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)—Thirty years on. European Journal of Operational Research 192 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diewert, W.E. 1976. Exact and Superlative Index Numbers. Journal of Econometrics 4: 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diewert, W.E. 1978. Superlative Index Numbers and Consistency in Aggregation. Econometrica 46: 883–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diewert, W.E. 1992. Fisher Ideal Output, Input and Productivity Indexes Revisited. Journal of Productivity Analysis 3: 211–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell, M.J. 1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 120: 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrell, M.J., and M. Fieldhouse. 1962. Estimating Efficient Production Functions under Increasing Returns to Scale. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 125: 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, and C.A.K. Lovell. 1994. Production Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Griliches, Z. 1996. The Discovery of the Residual: A Historical Note. Journal of Economic Literature 34 (3): 1324–1330.Google Scholar
  17. Liu, J.S., L.Y.Y. Lu, W. Lu, and B.J.Y. Lin. 2013. Data envelopment analysis 1978–2010: A citation-based literature survey. Omega 41 (1): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lovell, C.A.K. 1994. Linear Programming Approaches to the Measurement and Analysis of Productive Efficiency. Top 2: 175–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malmquist, S. 1953. Index Numbers and Indifference Surfaces. Trabajos de Estatistica 4: 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moorsteen, R.H. 1961. On Measuring Productive Potential and Relative Efficiency. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samoilenko, S., and K. Osei-Bryson. 2013. Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for monitoring efficiency-based performance of productivity-driven organizations: Design and implementation of a decision support system. Omega 41 (1): 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shaik, S. 1998. Environmentally Adjusted Productivity [EAP] Measures for Nebraska Agriculture Sector, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Accessed 28 July 2018.
  23. Shaik, S., A. Mishra, and J.A. Atwood. 2012. Aggregation Issues in the Estimation of Linear Programming Productivity Measures. Journal of Applied Economics XV 1: 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seitz, W.D. 1966. Efficiency Measures for Steam-Electric Generating Plants. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (Western Farm Economics Association), Vol. 39, August 15–17 1966, pp. 143–151.Google Scholar
  25. Shephard, R.W. 1953. Cost and Production Functions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sitorus, B.L. 1966. Productive Efficiency and Redundant Factors of Production in Traditional Agricultural of Underdeveloped Countries: A Note on Measurement, In Proceedings Western Farm Economic Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Econometric Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies (CAPTS)NDSUFargoUSA
  2. 2.MSUBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations