Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

A comparative analysis of the efficiency of national education systems

  • Claudio Thieme
  • Víctor Giménez
  • Diego Prior


The present study assesses the performance of 54 participating countries in PISA 2006. It employs efficiency indicators that relate result variables with resource variables used in the production of educational services. Desirable outputs of educational achievement and undesirable outputs of educational inequality are considered jointly as result variables. A construct that captures the quality and quantity of educational resources consumed is used as resource variables. Similarly, environmental variables of each educational system are included in the efficiency evaluation model; while these resources are not controllable by the managers of the education systems, they do affect outcomes. We find that European countries are characterized by weak management, the Americans (mainly Latin Americans) by a weak endowment of resources, and the Asians by a high level of heterogeneity. In particular, Asia combines countries with optimal systems (South Korea and Macao-China); countries with managerial problems (Hong Kong, China-Taipei, Japan and Israel); others where the main challenge is the weak endowment of resources (Jordan and Kyrgyzstan), and, finally, others where the main problem is in the long run since it concerns structural conditions of a socioeconomic and cultural nature (Turkey, Thailand, and Indonesia).


Efficiency Schools PISA International comparison 



C. Thieme acknowledges the financial support of Fondecyt, grant 11085061.


  1. Álvarez Pinilla, A. ed. (2001). La Medición de la Eficiencia y la Productividad. Ediciones Pirámide. Madrid.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, M., & Toma, E. (1994). Variation in state education policies and effects on student performance. Journal of Policy and Management, 13, 3.Google Scholar
  3. Bessent, A., & Bessent, E. (1980). Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through data envelopment analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessent, A., Bessent, W., Kennington, J., & Reagan, B. (1982). An application of mathematical programming to assess productivity in the houston independent school district. Management Science, 28, 1355–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briec, W. (2000). An extended Färe–Lovell technical efficiency measure. International Journal of Production Economics, 65, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, D., Wu, Ch., Ching, G., & Tang, Ch. (2009). An evaluation of the dynamics of the plan to develop first-class universities and top-level research centers in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson, W. (2010). Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: reflections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Theory and application of directional distance functions. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Weber, W. (1989). Measuring school district performance. Public Finance Quarterly, 17, 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flegg, A., Allen, D., & Thurlow, W. (2004). Measuring the efficiency of British Universities: A multi-period data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 12, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giménez, V., Prior, D., & Thieme, C. (2007). Technical efficiency, managerial efficiency and objective-setting in the educational system. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 996–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gross, M. (2003). Educational Systems and perceived social inequality. European Societies, 5, 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanushek, E., & Taylor, L. (1990). Alternative assessments of the performance of schools: measurement of state variations in achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 25, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joumadi, O., & Ris, C. (2005). Performance in European higher education: A non-parametric production frontier approach. Education Economics, 13(2), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lozano-Vivas, A., Pastor, J. T., & Pastor, J. M. (2002). An efficiency comparison of European banking systems operating under different environmental conditions. J Product Analysis, 18, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mancebón, M. J., & Mar Molinero, C. (2000). Performance in primary schools. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 131–152.Google Scholar
  17. Mancebón, M. J., & Muñiz, M. (2008). Private versus public high schools in Spain: Disentangling managerial and programme efficiencies. Journal of Operation Research Society, 59, 892–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muñiz, M. A. (2002). Separating managerial inefficiency and external conditions in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 143, 625–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nishimura, M. (2006). Considering equity in basic education reform in Japan from the perspective of private cost of education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(2), 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pedraja Chaparro, F., & Jiménez, Salinas. (1996). Eficiencia del Gasto Público en Educación Secundaria: Una Aplicación de la Técnica Envolvente de Datos. Hacienda Pública Española, 138, 87–95.Google Scholar
  21. Peña, C. (2004). Igualdad educativa y sociedad democrática. en García Huidobro (ed), Políticas Educativas y Calidad. Reflexiones del Seminario Internacional. Santiago de Chile, octubre de 2004.Google Scholar
  22. Prior, D. (1992). Los modelos frontera en la evaluación de la productividad. Esic Market. Octubre–Diciembre, 113–131.Google Scholar
  23. Prior, D., Verges, J., & Vilardell, I. (1993). La evaluación de la eficiencia en los sectores privado y público. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.Google Scholar
  24. Puryear, J. (2003). La educación en América Latina: Problemas y desafíos. en Gajardo y Puryear (eds.), Formas y reformas de la educación en América Latina. Lom Ediciones.Google Scholar
  25. Silva-Portela, M. C. A., & Thanassoulis, E. (2001). Decomposing School and School-Type Efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 132, 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, P., & Mayston, D. (1987). Measuring Efficiency in the Public Sector. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, 15, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teddlie, Ch., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Thanassoulis, E., & Dunstan, P. (1994). Guiding schools to improved performance using data envelopment analysis: An illustration with data from a local education authority. Journal of Operational Research Society, 45, 1247–1262.Google Scholar
  29. White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socio-economic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Economía y EmpresaUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiago de ChileChile
  2. 2.Departamento de Economía de la EmpresaUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaCerdanyolaSpain

Personalised recommendations