Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 125–137 | Cite as

Measures in DEA with an Application to the Malmquist Index

  • Robert M. Thrall
Article

Abstract

This paper shows the importance of goal vectors G in measuring and dealing with DEA inefficiencies. It emphasizes the advantages of the family of additive relative to the traditional oriented DEA models and shifts the primary emphasis to measuring inefficiency rather than efficiency. This new (raw) inefficiency measure RIN incorporates both the traditional DEA efficiency and the DEA slacks and provides the background for a new approach to the Malmquist Index. The final section points out some deficiencies in existing computational procedures for selecting G and calls for continued research on the selection process, as well as showing a role for G in returns to scale studies.

additive and oriented DEA models goal vector inefficiency measures Malmquist Index returns to scale 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balk, B. M. (1993). “Malmquist Productivity Indexes and Fisher Ideal Indexes: Comment.” The Economic Journal 103, 680-682.Google Scholar
  2. Banker, R. D., and R. M. Thrall. (1992). “Estimation of Returns to Scale using Data Envelopment Analysis.” European Journal of Operations Research 62, 74-84.Google Scholar
  3. Charnes, A.,W.W. Cooper, and R. M. Thrall. (1991). “A Structure for Classifying and Characterizing Efficiencies and Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis.” The Journal of Productivity Analysis 2, 197-237.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, W.W., Kyung Sam Park, and J. T. Pastor. (1999). “RAM: A Range Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency for Use with Additive Models and Relations to Other Models and Measures in DEA.” The Journal of Productivity Analysis 11, 5-42.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, W.W., and J. T. Pastor. (1997). “Generalized Efficiency Measures (GEMS) and Model Relations for Use in DEA.” Working Paper, Dept. Est. Inv. Oper. Universidad Alicante, Alicante, Spain.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, W.W., R. G. Thompson, and R. M. Thrall. (1996). “Introduction: Extensions and New Developments in DEA.” Annals of Operations Research 66, 3-45.Google Scholar
  7. Dula, J. H., and B. L. Hickman. (1997 version). “Effects of Excluding the Column Being Scored from the DEA Envelopment LP Technology Matrix.” Technical report 95-3, Department of Computer Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha. To appear in the Journal of the Operational Research Society.Google Scholar
  8. Färe, R., and S. Grosskopf. (1992). “Malmquist Productivity Indexes and Fisher Ideal Indexes.” Economic Journal, 158-160.Google Scholar
  9. Grifell-Tatje, E., C. A. K. Lovell, and J. T. Pastor. (1996). “A Quasi-Malmquist Productivity Index.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
  10. Jahanshahloo, G. R., and M. R. Alirazaee. “A Complete Efficiency Ranking of Decision Making Units: An Application to the Teacher Training University.” Working paper.Google Scholar
  11. Seiford, L. H., and R. M. Thrall. (1990). “Recent Developments in DEA: The Mathematical Programming Approach.” Journal of Econometrics 46, 1/2, Oct./Nov., 7-38.Google Scholar
  12. Thompson, R. G., et al. (1997). “Linked-Cone Profit Ratio Estimates of U.S. Total Factor Productivity Growth Using DEA/AR Methods.” In H. Amman et al. (eds.), Computational Approaches to Economic Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 79-90.Google Scholar
  13. Thrall, R. M. (1996). “Duality, Classifications and Slacks in DEA.” In W. W. Cooper et al. (eds.), Annals of Operations Research 66, 109-138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Thrall
    • 1
  1. 1.Jones Graduate School of ManagementRice UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations