Abstract
One of the main purposes of the frontier literature is to estimate inefficiency. Given this objective, it is unfortunate that the issue of estimating “firm-specific” inefficiency in cross sectional context has not received much attention. To estimate firm-specific (technical) inefficiency, the standard procedure is to use the mean of the inefficiency term conditional on the entire composed error as suggested by Jondrow, Lovell, Materov and Schmidt (1982). This conditional mean could be viewed as the average loss of output (return). It is also quite natural to consider the conditional variance which could provide a measure of production uncertainty or risk. Once we have the conditional mean and variance, we can report standard errors and construct confidence intervals for firm level technical inefficiency. Moreover, we can also perform hypothesis tests. We postulate that when a firm attempts to move towards the frontier it not only increases its efficiency, but it also reduces its production uncertainty and this will lead to shorter confidence intervals. Analytical expressions for production uncertainty under different distributional assumptions are provided, and it is shown that the technical inefficiency as defined by Jondrow et al. (1982) and the production uncertainty are monotonic functions of the entire composed error term. It is very interesting to note that this monotonicity result is valid under different distributional assumptions of the inefficiency term. Furthermore, some alternative measures of production uncertainty are also proposed, and the concept of production uncertainty is generalized to the panel data models. Finally, our theoretical results are illustrated with an empirical example.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aigner, D., C. A. K. Lovell, and P. Schmidt. (1977). “Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models.” Journal of Econometrics 6, 21–37.
Barrow, D. F., and A. C. Cohen, Jr. (1954). “On Some Functions Involving Mills Ratio.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 25, 405–408.
Battese, G. E., and Tim J. Coelli. (1988). “Prediction of Firm Level Technical Efficiencies with a Generalized Frontier Production Function and Panel Data.” Journal of Econometrics 38, 387–399.
Christensen, L., and W. H. Greene. (1976). “Economies of Scale in U.S. Electric Power Generation.” Journal of Political Economy 84, 655–676.
Greene, W. H. (1990). “A Gamma-Distributed Stochastic Frontier Model.” Journal of Econometrics 46, 141–163.
Hjalmarsson, L., S. C. Kumbhakar, and A. Heshmati. (1996). “DEA, DFA and SFA: A Comparison.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 7, 303–327.
Horrace, W. C., and P. Schmidt. (1996). “Confidence Statements for Efficiency Estimates from Stochastic Frontier Models.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 7, 257–282.
Jondrow, J., C. A. K. Lovell, I. Materov, and P. Schmidt. (1982). “On the Estimation of Technical Inefficiency in the Stochastic Frontier Production Function Model.” Journal of Econometrics 19, 233–238.
Lancaster, T. (1990). The Econometric Analysis of Transition Data. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Lehmann, E. L. (1983). Theory of Point Estimation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Meeusen, W., and J. van den Broeck. (1977). “Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error.” International Economic Review 18, 435–444.
Sampford, M. R. (1953). “Some Inequalities on Mill's Ratio and Related Functions.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 24, 130–132.
Schmidt, P., and C. A. K. Lovell. (1979). “Estimating Technical and Allocative Inefficiency Relative to Stochastic Production and Cost Frontiers.” Journal of Econometrics 9, 343–366.
Stevenson, R. E. (1980). “Likelihood Functions for Generalized Stochastic Frontier Estimation.” Journal of Econometrics 13, 58–66.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bera, A.K., Sharma, S.C. Estimating Production Uncertainty in Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models. Journal of Productivity Analysis 12, 187–210 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007828521773
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007828521773