Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 62, Issue 12, pp 2173–2188 | Cite as

Productivity change in the water industry in England and Wales: application of the meta-Malmquist index

  • M C A S Portela
  • E Thanassoulis
  • A Horncastle
  • T Maugg
General Paper

Abstract

This paper uses a meta-Malmquist index for measuring productivity change of the water industry in England and Wales and compares this to the traditional Malmquist index. The meta-Malmquist index computes productivity change with reference to a meta-frontier, it is computationally simpler and it is circular. The analysis covers all 22 UK water companies in existence in 2007, using data over the period 1993–2007. We focus on operating expenditure in line with assessments in this field, which treat operating and capital expenditure as lacking substitutability. We find important improvements in productivity between 1993 and 2005, most of which were due to frontier shifts rather than catch up to the frontier by companies. After 2005, the productivity shows a declining trend. We further use the meta-Malmquist index to compare the productivities of companies at the same and at different points in time. This shows some interesting results relating to the productivity of each company relative to that of other companies over time, and also how the performance of each company relative to itself over 1993–2007 has evolved. The paper is grounded in the broad theory of methods for measuring productivity change, and more specifically on the use of circular Malmquist indices for that purpose. In this context, the contribution of the paper is methodological and applied. From the methodology perspective, the paper demonstrates the use of circular meta-Malmquist indices in a comparative context not only across companies but also within company across time. This type of within-company assessment using Malmquist indices has not been applied extensively and to the authors’ knowledge not to the UK water industry. From the application perspective, the paper throws light on the performance of UK water companies and assesses the potential impact of regulation on their performance. In this context, it updates the relevant literature using more recent data.

Keywords

productivity Malmquist index DEA water companies 

References

  1. Althin R (2001). Measurement of productivity changes: Two Malmquist index approaches. J Prod Anal 16: 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton JK (2000). Total factor productivity growth and technical change in the water and sewerage industry. Serv Ind J 20(4): 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubert C and Reynaud A (2005). The impact of regulation on cost efficiency: An empirical analysis of Wisconsin water utilities. J Prod Anal 23(3): 383–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battese GE and Rao DSP (2002). Technology gap, efficiency and a stochastic metafrontier function. Int J Bus Econ 1(2): 87–93.Google Scholar
  5. Berg SA, Forsund FR and Jansen ES (1992). Malmquist Indices of Productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking, 1980–89. Scand J Econ 94 (Supplement): 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bottasso A and Conti M (2003). Cost inefficiency in the English and Welsh water industry: An heteroskedastic stochastic cost frontier approach. DIEM Università di Genova, mimeo.Google Scholar
  7. Bottasso A and Conti M (2009). Scale economies, technology and technical change in the water industry: Evidence from the English water only sector. Reg Sci Urban Econ 39: 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caves DW, Christensen LR and Diewert WE (1982). The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity. Econometrica 50: 1393–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers RG and Färe R (1994). Hicks’ neutrality and trade biased growth: A taxonomy. J Econ Theory 64: 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dyson RG, Allen R, Camanho AS, Podinovski VV, Sarrico CS and Shale EA (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. Eur J Opl Res 132(2): 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erbetta F and Cave M (2006). Regulation and efficiency incentives: Evidence from the England and Wales water and sewerage industry. HERMES Working Paper 8.Google Scholar
  12. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M and Zhang Z (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency changes in industrialised countries. Am Econ Rev 84: 66–83.Google Scholar
  13. Førsund FR (2002). On the circularity of the Malmquist productivity index. Working paper, Department of economics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  14. O'Donnell CJ, Rao DSP and Battese GE (2008). Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Econ 37(2): 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. OFWAT (1999). Final determinations: Future water and sewerage charges 2000–05. November, http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/legacy/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/Content/finaldeterminations.html.
  16. OFWAT (2004). Future water and sewerage charges 2005–10: Final determinations. December, http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/legacy/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/Content/pr04fd.html.
  17. OFWAT (2007). RD 21/0 relative efficiency assessment 2006–07. http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/legacy/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/Content/rd2107.html.
  18. Pastor JT and Lovell CAK (2005). A global Malmquist productivity index. Econ Lett 88: 266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pastor JT and Lovell CAK (2007). Circularity of the Malmquist productivity index. Economic Theor 33: 591–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Portela MCAS and Thanassoulis E (2006). Malmquist indexes using a geometric distance function (GDF): Application to a sample of Portuguese bank branches. J Prod Anal 25 (1/2): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Portela MCAS and Thanassoulis E (2008). A circular Malmquist-type index for measuring productivity. Aston Working Paper RP08-02, Aston University Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Portela MCAS and Thanassoulis E (2010). Malmquist-type indices in the presence of negative data: An application to bank branches. J Bank Financ. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.01.004.Google Scholar
  23. Ray SC and Desli E (1997). Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency changes in industrialised countries: comment. Am Econ Rev 87(5): 1033–1039.Google Scholar
  24. Renzetti S and Dupont D (2004). The performance of municipal water utilities: Evidence on the role of ownership. J Tox Env Health Part A 67: 1861–1878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saal D and Parker D (2000). The impact of privatization and regulation on the water and sewerage industry in England and Wales: A translog cost function model. Manage Decis Econ 21: 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saal D and Parker D (2001). Productivity and price performance in the privatized water and sewerage companies of England and Wales. J Regul Econ 20(1): 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saal D and Parker D (2004). The comparative impact of privatization and regulation on productivity growth in the English and Welsh water and sewerage industry 1985–99. Int J Regul Gov 4(2): 139–170.Google Scholar
  28. Saal D and Parker D (2005). Assessing the performance of water operations in the English and Welsh water industry: A panel input distance function approach. RP0502 Aston Business School Research Papers.Google Scholar
  29. Saal D and Reid S (2004). Estimating OPEX productivity growth in English and Welsh water and sewerage companies: 199–2003. RP0434 Aston Business School Research Papers.Google Scholar
  30. Saal D, Parker D and Weyman-Jones T (2007). Determining the contribution of technical change, efficiency change and scale change to productivity growth in the privatized English and Welsh water and sewerage industry: 1985–2000. J prod Anal 28: 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tulkens H and Vanden Eeckaut P (1995). Non-parametric efficiency, progress and regress measures for panel data: Methodological aspects. Eur J opl Re 80: 474–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M C A S Portela
    • 1
  • E Thanassoulis
    • 2
  • A Horncastle
    • 3
  • T Maugg
    • 3
  1. 1.Portuguese Catholic UniversityPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Aston Business School, Aston UniversityUK
  3. 3.OxeraUK

Personalised recommendations