Empirical Economics

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 287–308 | Cite as

A hedonic-output-index-based approach to modeling polluting technologies

  • Emir Malikov
  • Raushan Bokusheva
  • Subal C. KumbhakarEmail author


Despite some recent criticisms, the conventional radial distance function, which treats undesirable by-products as either frontier shifters or inputs, remains a popular go-to formulation of polluting production processes among practitioners. This unfading popularity is arguably driven by the ability of radial distance functions, unlike alternative directional distance functions, to allow for unit-free multiplicative changes in arguments as well as, by implicitly postulating the radial direction, to free researchers from the dilemma of having to explicitly choose the directional vector. In this paper, we offer a generalization of the standard radial distance function to polluting technologies that can accommodate undesirable by-products in a more economically meaningful way. Specifically, we propose modeling undesirable outputs via a hedonic output index, which is meant to ensure that pollutants are treated as outputs, as opposed to inputs or theoretically unregulated frontier shifters, while also recognizing their undesirable nature. By using a radial input distance function generalized to encompass an (unobservable) hedonic output index of desirable and undesirable outputs, we are able to meaningfully describe relationships between different products (including the complementarity of desirable and undesirable outputs) within producible output sets as well as to represent technically feasible polluting production possibilities given inputs. An empirical application of our methodology to the case of Dutch dairy farms in 2001–2009 demonstrates the complexity of interactions between outputs, thereby attesting to the value of more elaborate representations of production possibilities.


Bad output Dairy production Input distance function Livestock Nitrogen pollution Shadow price 

JEL Classification

D24 D62 Q12 


  1. Assaf AG, Matousek R, Tsionas EG (2013) Turkish bank efficiency: Bayesian estimation with undesirable outputs. J Bank Financ 37:506–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson SE, Dorfman JH (2005) Bayesian measurement of productivity and efficiency in the presence of undesirable outputs: crediting electric utilities for reducing air pollution. J Econom 126:445–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett WA (2002) Tastes and technology: curvature is not sufficient for regularity. J Econom 108:199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett WA, Geweke J, Wolfe M (1991) Seminonparametric Bayesian estimation of the asymptotically ideal production model. J Econom 49:5–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackorby C, Russell R (1981) The Morishima elasticity of substitution: symmetry, constancy, separability, and its relationship with the Hicks and Allen elasticities. Rev Econ Stud 48:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brümmer B, Glauben T, Thijssen G (2002) Decomposition of productivity growth using distance functions: the case of dairy farms in three European countries. Am J Agric Econ 84:628–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1998) Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. J Optim Theory Appl 98:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung Y, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 51:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuesta RA, Lovell CAK, Zofio JL (2009) Environmental efficiency measurement with translog distance functions: a parametric approach. Ecol Econ 68:2232–2242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emvalomatis G, Stefanou SE, Oude Lansink A (2011) A reduced-form model for dynamic efficiency measurement: application to dairy farms in Germany and the Netherlands. Am J Agric Econ 93:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Yaisawarng S (1993) Derivation of shadow prices for undesirable outputs: a distance function approach. Rev Econ Stat 75:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Noh D-W, Weber W (2005) Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J Econom 126:469–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Färe R, Primont D (1995) Multi-output production and duality: theory and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernández C, Koop G, Steel MFJ (2002) Multiple-output production with undesirable outputs: an application to nitrogen surplus in agriculture. J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):432–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández C, Koop G, Steel MFJ (2005) Alternative efficiency measures for multiple-output production. J Econom 126:411–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hailu A, Veeman TS (2000) Environmentally sensitive productivity analysis of the Canadian pulp and paper industry, 1959–1994: an input distance function approach. J Environ Econ Manag 40:251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hailu A, Veeman TS (2001) Non-parametric productivity analysis with undesirable outputs: an application to the Canadian pulp and paper industry. Am J Agric Econ 83:605–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumbhakar SC, Lovell CAK (2000) Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lange K (2004) Optimization (Springer texts in statistics). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Malikov E, Kumbhakar SC, Tsionas EG (2015a) Bayesian approach to disentangling technical and environmental productivity. Econometrics 3:443–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malikov E, Kumbhakar SC, Tsionas EG (2015b) A cost system approach to the stochastic directional technology distance function with undesirable outputs: the case of U.S. banks in 2001–2010. J Appl Econom. doi: 10.1002/jae.2491
  23. Murty S, Russell RR, Levkoff SB (2012) On modeling pollution-generating technologies. J Environ Econ Manag 64:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olley GS, Pakes A (1996) The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64:1263–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reinhard S, Lovell CAK, Thijssen G (1999) Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: an application to Dutch dairy farms. Am J Agric Econ 81:44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reinhard S, Lovell CAK, Thijssen G (2000) Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables; estimated with SFA and DEA. Eur J Oper Res 121:287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shephard RW (1953) Cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Shephard RW (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emir Malikov
    • 1
  • Raushan Bokusheva
    • 2
  • Subal C. Kumbhakar
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural SociologyAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Trade and Agriculture Directorate, OECDParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsState University of New York at BinghamtonBinghamtonUSA

Personalised recommendations