Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 41–58 | Cite as

Evaluating Effectiveness in Public Provision of Infrastructure and Equipment: The Case of Spanish Municipalities

  • Angel M. Prieto
  • José L. ZofIo


Concernabout local government ability to provide public services inan effective way is increasing in Spain as these functions arebeing decentralized from the central to regional governments.The goal of this research is to provide state and local officialswith a decision making tool that allows evaluation of the quantityand quality of the public services--infrastructure and equipment--thatthey are responsible for offering. We characterize performanceamong similar administrative observations, e.g. municipalities,by defining effectiveness improvement strategies--basedon selective funds allocation--that identify and rank thosesectors and variables that present provision deficits and requireprior attention. In order to evaluate provision at the municipalitylevel we define an additive effectiveness measure making useof Data Envelopment Analysis techniques which are enhanced toaccount for the presence of standards. The statistical data arefrom the Spanish Local Infrastructure and Equipment Survey.

Public Services Provision Infrastructure and Equipment Municipalities Data Envelopment Analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aida, K., W.W. Cooper, J.T. Pastor, and T. Sueyoshi. (1998). “Evaluating Water Supply Services in Japan with RAM--A Range-Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency.” Omega, Int. J. Mgmt. Sci. 26, 207–232.Google Scholar
  2. Beltrán, M., A. Mayo, and F. Parra. (1996). “Análisis de la Encuesta de Infraestructura de Castilla y León a Través de Indicadores de Sintésis.” Actas del 5° Congreso de Economía Regional de Castilla y León 1, 370–376.Google Scholar
  3. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. (1978). “Measuring the Efficiency on Decision Making Units.” European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429–44.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, W.W., K.S. 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.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 11, 5–42.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, W.W., L.M. Seiford, and K. Tone. (1999). Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text With Uses, Example Applications, References and a DEA Solver Code. Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. De Borger, B., K. Kerstens, W. Moesen, and J. Vaneste. (1994). “Explaining Differences in Productive Efficiency: An Application to Belgian Municipalities.” Public Choice 80, 339–358.Google Scholar
  7. De Borger, B., and K. Kerstens. (1996). “Cost Efficiency of Belgian Local Governments: A Comparative Analysis of FDH, DEA, and Econometric Approaches.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 26(2), 145–170.Google Scholar
  8. Farrell, M. (1957). “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Serie A (General) 120, 253–284, Part III.Google Scholar
  9. Hayes, K., and S. Chang. (1990). “The Relative Efficiency of City Managers and Mayor-Council Forms of Government.” Southern Economic Journal 57, 167–177.Google Scholar
  10. Junta de Castilla y León. (1997). Datos Estadísticos de los Municipios de Castilla y León (1997), Consejería de Economía y Hacienda, Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid.Google Scholar
  11. Lovell, C.A.K., and J.T. Pastor. (1995). “Units Invariant and Translation Invariant DEA Models.” Operations Research Letters 18, 147–151.Google Scholar
  12. Lovell, C.A.K., and J.T. Pastor. (1999). “Radial DEA Models Without Inputs or Without Outputs.” European Journal of Operational Research 118, 46–51.Google Scholar
  13. MAP. (1985). Encuesta sobre Infraestructura y Equipamiento Local, Dirección General de Cooperación Local, Banco de Crédito Local de España, Ministerio de Administraciones Públicas, Madrid.Google Scholar
  14. MEH. (1997). La Descentralización del Gasto Público en España: Período 1984–1995. Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda, Secretaria de Estado de Hacienda, Dirección General de Coordinación con las Haciendas Territoriales, Madrid.Google Scholar
  15. Schofield, J. (1987). Cost-Benefit Analysis in Urban & Regional Planning. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Seroka, J. (1989). “Public Administration and Planning in Rural Areas.” Journal of Planning Literature 4, 430–444.Google Scholar
  17. Vanden Eeckaut, P., H. Tulkens, and M-A. J. Jamar. (1993). “Cost Efficeincy in Belgian Municipalities.” In H. Fried, C.A.K. Lovell, and S. Schmidt (eds.), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angel M. Prieto
    • 1
  • José L. ZofIo
    • 2
  1. 1.I.R.N.A. - C.S.I.C.SalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Análisis Economico: Teoría Economica e Historia EconomicaUniversidad Autonoma de MadridCantoblanco, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations