Efficiency drivers for the South Pacific West coast port terminals: a two-stage non-convex metafrontier dea approach

Abstract

We measure technical efficiency of Peruvian and Chilean port terminals, to evaluate the influence of certain contextual variables in the terminals’ efficiency levels. The sample includes 14 port terminals from 2004 to 2014. Due to the potential differences, we have estimated a DEA model in a non-convex metafrontier framework. Afterwards, we estimated all the regression models proposed in the literature that could be used to explain not only the technical efficiency estimated with respect to the metafrontier (TE*) but also each one of its components: the technical efficiency with respect to the group-specific frontier (TEk) and the technological gap ratio (TGR). Results are robust across models.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    These authors reviewed published port literature between 1980 and 2000 to investigate how seaport research has been conducted from the methodological perspective. They found that the main techniques used were descriptive statistics (35.5%), regression (16.9%), DEA (10.2%), Logit model (5.1%) and SFA (4.8%).

  2. 2.

    Furthermore, the present paper complements a more recent paper (Chang and Tovar, 2017b), which evaluates, with the same dataset, how differences in the terminals' total factor productivity could be explained by certain explanatory variables. See also Tovar and Wall (2019).

  3. 3.

    A detailed analysis about the relative merits of all of these models is out of the scope of this article. For a general reference, see Fried et al. (2008) and for a port terminals' application reference, see Cullinane and Wang (2010).

  4. 4.

    To test the robustness of our TE results depending on the DEA model used, the DEA efficiency scores were calculated from four different models: The Pooled model, the Yearly model, and, finally, two Window DEA models, where DEA scores are calculated using moving 5-year and 3-year windows, respectively. We have decided to keep the results from the yearly model for the second stage for two reasons. First and foremost, we are interested in discovering which determinants explain the \(TE_{i}^{*}\), \(TE_{i}^{k}\) and \(TGR_{i}\) scores on a yearly base. (For a similar analysis regarding the changes in those variables, as opposed to the levels, interested readers are referred to our paper Chang and Tovar 2017b). The second reason is that due to the fact that the TE DEA scores are highly correlated across models, in this way we avoid the problem identified by Cooper et al. (2004) of choosing the width for a window and the theoretical implications of representing each port terminal as if it were a different one for each period in the window.

  5. 5.

    A systematic overview of contextual variables influencing on terminals’ efficiency is out of the scope of the present paper but could be find in Bichou (2009).

  6. 6.

    Data accuracy, imprecision and missing values are common problems. To the previously mentioned problems, a useful approach could be Imprecise DEA (Zahran et al. 2020).

  7. 7.

    However, there are a lot of papers that, due to the difficulties in accessing that data, ignore this variable or try to approximate it through another capital variable; for example, the number of cranes. It should be noticed that both capital and labour variables should be included in the estimation, unless it is demonstrated that there is a perfect complementarity between them. To the best of our knowledge this relationship has never been demonstrated.

  8. 8.

    The time trend shows the efficiency evolving in a period. If firms improved their efficiency the coefficient linked to this variable would be positive. The time trend squared variable is included to allow more flexibility when modelling the temporary pattern of TE. We included both in our model because we believe that, due to the effect of learning by doing, when time pass leads to a more efficient situation although to a diminishing rate. Therefore, we expect that the coefficient linked to time squared variable ends up being negative.

  9. 9.

    The data used was obtained from various sources and is the same that the one used in Chang and Tovar, (2017a). The reader interested in more details about the dataset, can find it there.

  10. 10.

    Chang and Tovar (2017a) found that Latent Class Stochastic Frontier Model, with two classes, fits the unobserved heterogeneity of the Peruvian and Chilean port terminals better than the other Standard Stochastic Frontier Models.

  11. 11.

    Peruvian terminals analysed in this paper manage three type of cargo: containerized cargo, general & rolling freight and bulk cargo.

  12. 12.

    Container index, bulk ratio, occupancy rate and dgest variables have been identified by Chang and Tovar (2014b) as specific explanatory variables that contribute to reducing the inefficiency of Peruvian and Chilean port terminals.

  13. 13.

    Another commonly used proxy for inter-port competition is the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (Figueiredo De Oliveira and Cariou 2015). Nevertheless, the construction of this variable requires very comprehensive data to appropriately define the relevant market of each kind of cargo. This data is not available for each terminal for the whole period.

  14. 14.

    Remember that \({\mathrm{TE}}_{\mathrm{i}}^{*}\), \({\mathrm{TE}}_{\mathrm{i}}^{\mathrm{k}}\) and \({\mathrm{TGR}}_{\mathrm{i}}\) scores are calculated following the yearly model because in the second stage, as we explained in footnote 3, we are interested in analysing the drivers of the variable levels each year and not in analysing the drivers of the changes in variables between the years. (The latter could be done by computing Malmquist productivity indices using metafrontiers, as Chang and Tovar (2017b) have recently shown). Therefore, Fig. 2 should be understood as reflecting how the levels of those variables change regarding the frontier of each year.

  15. 15.

    This is the average technical efficiency with respect to the metafrontier and its value varies between 0 and 1.

  16. 16.

    It should be noted that TGR = 1 indicates that (\({TE}_{i}^{*})\) is the same as (\({TE}_{i}^{k})\), but this does not necessarily mean that the terminal is efficient.

  17. 17.

    Remember that this variable is equal to 1 when terminal belongs to class 2 and zero otherwise.

References

  1. Autoridad Portuaria Nacional del Perú-APN (2010). Reporte mensual 2010, Ocupabilidad de muelles en los TP de ENAPU Callao y DP World

  2. Banker RD, Natarajan R (2008) Evaluating contextual variables affecting productivity using data envelopment analysis. Operations Res 56(1):48–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Battese GE, Rao DSP (2002) Technology Potential, Efficiency and a Stochastic Metafrontier Function. Int J Bus Econ 1(2):1–7

  4. Bergantino AS, Musso E (2011) The role of external factors versus managerial ability in determining seaports’ relative efficiency: An input-by-input analysis through a multi-step approach on a panel of Southern European ports. Marit Econ Logist 13(2):121–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bichou K (2009) Port Operations Planning and Logistics (Lloyd’s Practical Shipping Guides) 2nd Edition. Routledge, Informa Law

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chang V, Tovar B (2014a) Efficiency and productivity changes for Peruvian and Chilean ports terminals: a parametric distance functions approach. Transp Policy 31:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang V, Tovar B (2014b) Drivers explaining the inefficiency of peruvian and chilean ports terminals. Transp Res Part E 67:190–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang V, Tovar B (2017a) Heterogeneity unobserved and efficiency: a latent class model for west coast of south pacific port terminals. J Transp Econ Policy 51(2):139–156

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chang V, Tovar B (2017b) Metafrontier analysis on efficiency and productivity for west coast of south pacific terminals. Transp Res Part A: Policy Practice 103:118–134

    Google Scholar 

  10. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the inefficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1979) Short communication: measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Operations Res 3:339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2005) An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cooper WW, Seiford L, Zhu J (2004) Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. Volumen 71 de International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, ISSN 0884-8289EA. Taylor & Francis. ISBN:1402077971, 9781402077975

  14. Cullinane KW, Wat T (2010) The efficiency analysis of container port production using DEA panel data approaches. OR Spectrum 32:717–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK (1985) The Measurement of efficiency of production. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  16. Figueiredo G, Cariou P (2015) The impact of competition on container port in efficiency. Transp Res Part A 48:124–133

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (2008) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. OUP, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jin Q, Kerstens K, Van de Woestyne I (2019) Metafrontier productivity indices: questioning the common convexification strategy. Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.11.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ju S, Liu N (2015) Efficiency and its influencing factors in port enterprises: empirical evidence from Chinese port listed companies. Marit Policy Manag 42(6):571–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kerstens K, O’Donnell CJ, Van de Woestyne I (2015) Frontier metatechnologies and convexity: a restatement. IESEG School of Management Discussion paper LEM, France, pp 2015–2108

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kerstens K, O’Donnell CJ, Van de Woestyne I (2019) Metatechnology frontier and convexity: a restatement. Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McDonald J (2009) Using least squares and Tobit in second stage DEA efficiency analyses. Eur J Oper Res 197:792–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Niavis S, Tsekeris T (2012) Ranking and causes of inefficiency of container seaports in South-Eastern Europe. Eur Transp Res Rev 4:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. O'Donnell C (2008) An aggregate quantity-price framework for measuring and decomposing productivity and profitability change, Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis Working Papers: WP07/2008, University of Queensland

  25. Panayides P, Maxoulis C, Wang T-F, Koi Yu (2009) A critical analysis of DEA application to seaport economic efficiency measurement. Transp Rev 29(2):183–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Papke LE, Wooldridge JM (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (K) plan participation rates. J Appl Econometrics 11:619–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pestana C and Managi S (2008) Productivity drivers in Japanese seaports, technical University of Lisbon, Department of Economics, Working Paper

  28. Polyzos S, Niavis S (2013) Evaluating port efficiency in the Mediterranean. Int J Data Anal Techniques Strategies 5(1):84–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ramalho EA, Ramalho JS, Henriques PD (2010) Fractional regression models for second stage DEA efficiency analyses. J Prod Anal 34:239–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ and Battese G (2004) Metafrontier functions for the study of inter-regional productivity differences. CEPA Working Paper, No.1/2003, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Brisbane

  31. Simar L, Wilson PW (2007) Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econometrics 136:31–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Simar L, Wilson PW (2011) Two-stage DEA: caveat emptor. J Prod Anal 36:205–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tovar B, Rodríguez-Déniz H (2015) Classifying ports for efficiency benchmarking: a review and a frontier-based clustering approach. Transp Rev 35(3):378–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tovar B, Wall A (2017) Specialization, diversification, size and technical efficiency in ports: an empirical analysis using frontier techniques. Eur J Transp Infrastructure Res 17(2):279–303

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tovar B, Wall A (2019) Are larger and more complex port more productive? an analysis of Spanish port authorities. Transp Res Part A: policy and practice 121:265–276

    Google Scholar 

  36. Turner H, Windle R, Dresner M (2004) North American container port productivity: 1984–1997. Transp Res Part E 40:339–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wan Y, Yuen ACL, Zhang A (2014) Effects of hinterland accessibility on US container port efficiency. Int J Shipp Transp Logist 6(4):422–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wanke PF, Barbastefano R, Hijjar MF (2011) Determinants of efficiency at major Brazilian port terminals. Transp Rev 31(5):653–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wanke PF (2013) Physical infrastructure and shipment consolidation efficiency drivers in Brazilian ports: a two-stage network-DEA approach. Transp Policy 29:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wanke PF, Pestana C (2015) Public-private partnerships and scale efficiency in Brazilian ports: Evidence from two-stage DEA analysis. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 51:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wanke PF, Pestana C (2016) New evidence on the determinants of efficiency at Brazilian ports: a bootstrapped DEA analysis. Shipp Transp Logist 8(3):250–272

    Google Scholar 

  42. Woo S-H, Pettit SJ, Kwak D-W, Beresford AKC (2011) Seaport research: a structured literature review on methodological issues since the 1980s. Transp Res Part A 45:667–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yip TL, Sun X, Liu J (2010) Evolution of global container operator efficiency: a DEA approach. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department of Logistics and Maritime Studies

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yuen A, Zhang A, Cheung W (2013) Foreign participation and competition: a way to improve the container port efficiency in China? Transp Res Part A 49:220–231

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zahran SZ, Alam JB, Al-Zahrani AH, Smirlis Y, Papadimitriou S, Tsioumas V (2020) Analysis of port efficiency using imprecise and incomplete data. Oper Res Int J 20:219–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-017-0322-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially funded with Grant ECO2015-68345-R (MINECO/FEDER) from Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Authors contributed equally to the development of the present paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatriz Tovar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, V., Tovar, B. Efficiency drivers for the South Pacific West coast port terminals: a two-stage non-convex metafrontier dea approach. Oper Res Int J (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-021-00626-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Two-stage DEA non-convex metafrontier
  • Fractional regression models
  • Bootstrap truncated regression
  • Port terminals
  • Technological gap ratio
  • Efficiency drivers

Mathematics Subject Classification

  • 90B30