Advertisement

Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 347–365 | Cite as

A Benchmark Analysis of Italian Seaports Using Data Envelopment Analysis

  • Carlos Pestana Barros
Original Article

Abstract

This paper uses data envelopment analysis to evaluate the performance of Italian seaports from 2002 to 2003, combining operational and financial variables. The paper evaluates how close the Italian seaports are to the frontier of best practices. Moreover, the paper also tests for the role played by size, containerisation and labour in the efficiency of the seaports analysed. The general conclusion is that the Italians seaports examined display relatively high efficiency. However, there are also some inefficient seaports in the sample analysed. Management implications are subsequently drawn.

Keywords

Italian seaports data envelopment analysis Mann–Whitney tests efficiency 

References

  1. Altunbas, Y, Gardener, EPM, Molyneux, P and Moore, B . 2001: Efficiency in European banking. European Economic Review 45: 1931–1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, P and Petersen, NC . 1993: A procedure for ranking efficiency units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 39: 1261–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker, R . 1993: Maximum likelihood, consistency and data envelopment analysis. Management Science 39: 1265–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banker, RD, Charnes, A and Cooper, WW . 1984: Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30: 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baños Pino, J, Coto Millan, P and Rodriguez Alvarez, A . 1999: Allocative efficiency, over-capitalisation: an application. International Journal of Transport Economics 2: 181–199.Google Scholar
  6. Barros, CP . 2003a: Incentive regulation and efficiency of Portuguese port authorities. Maritime Economics & Logistics 5: 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barros, CP . 2003b: The measurement of efficiency of Portuguese seaport authorities with DEA. International Journal of Transport Economics 30: 335–354.Google Scholar
  8. Barros, CP . 2005: Decomposing growth in Portuguese seaports: a frontier cost approach. Maritime Economics & Logistic 7: 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barros, CP and Athanassiou, M . 2004: Efficiency in European seaports with DEA: evidence from Greece and Portugal. Maritime Economics & Logistics 6: 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boussofiane, A and Dyson, RG . 1991: Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 52: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brockett, PL, Chang, RE, Rousseau, JJ, Semple, JH and Yang, C . 2004: A comparison of HMO efficiencies as a function of provider autonomy. Journal of Risk and Insurance 71: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brockett, PL and Golany, B . 1996: Using rank statistics for determining programming efficiency differences in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 42: 466–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks, AD, Kendrick, D and Meerhaus, A . 1992: GAMS: a user's guide. Scientific Press: California.Google Scholar
  14. Charnes, A, Cooper, WW, Gollany, B, Seiford, L and Stutz, J . 1985: Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical productions functions. Journal of Econometrics 30: 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes, A, Cooper, WW and Huang, ZM . 1990: Polyhedral Cone-Ratio DEA with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. Journal of Econometrics 46: 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charnes, A, Cooper, WW, Lewin, AY and Seiford, LM . 1995: Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and applications. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Charnes, A, Cooper, WW and Rhodes, E . 1978: Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operations Research 2: 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Charnes, A, Cooper, WW, Seiford, L and Stutz, JA . 1982: Multiplicative model of efficiency analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 16: 223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coelli, TJ and Perelman, S . 1999: A comparison of parameter and non-parametric distance functions with application to European railways. European Journal of Operational Research 117: 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coelli, TJ and Perelman, S . 2000: Technical efficiency of European railways: a distance function approach. Applied Economics 32: 1967–1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coelli, TJ, Rao, P and Battese, GE . 1998: An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper, WW, Seiford, LM and Tone, K . 2000: Data Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer: Boston.Google Scholar
  23. Coto Millan, P, Baños Pino, J and Rodrigues Alvarez, A . 2000: Economic efficiency in spanish ports: some empirical evidence. Maritime Policy & Management 27: 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cullinane, K, Song, DW and Wang, T . 2005: The application of mathematical programming approaches to estimating container port production efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis 24: 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cullinane, K, Wang, TF, Song, DW and Ji, P . 2006: The technical efficiency of container ports: comparing data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part A 40: 354–374.Google Scholar
  26. Cullinane, KPB and Song, DW . 2003: A stochastic frontier model of the productive efficiency of Korean container terminals. Applied Economics 35: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cullinane, KPB, Song, DW and Gray, R . 2002: A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures. Transportation Research Part A 36: 734–762.Google Scholar
  28. Doyle, J and Green, R . 1994: Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society 45: 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Estache, A, Gonzaléz, M and Trujillo, L . 2001: Efficiency gains from port reforms and the potential for yardstick competition: lessons from México. World Development 30: 545–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fare, RS, Grosskopf, S and Lovell, CAK . 1994: Production frontiers. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Farrell, MJ . 1957: The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 120: 253–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gollani, B and Roll, Y . 1989: An application procedure for DEA. Omega International Journal of Management Sciences 17: 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grosskopf, S and Valdamanis, A . 1987: Measuring hospital performance: a non-parametric approach. Journal of Health Economics 6: 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haralambides, HE, Verbeke, A, Musso, E and Benacchio, M . 2001: Port financing and pracing in the European Union: theory, politics and reality. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen, MC and Meckling, W . 1976: Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kumbhakar, SC . 1987: Production frontiers and panel data: an application to US Class 1 railroads. Journal of Business and Economics Statistics 5: 249–255.Google Scholar
  37. Liu, Z . 1995: The comparative performance of public and private enterprises. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 29: 263–274.Google Scholar
  38. Malmquist, S . 1953: Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadística 4: 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martinez Budria, E, Diaz Armas, R, Navarro Ibañez, M and Ravelo Mesa, T . 1999: A study of the efficiency of Spanish port authorities using data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Transport Economics 2: 237–253.Google Scholar
  40. Orea, L and Kumbhakar, S . 2004: Efficiency measurement using a latent class stochastic frontier model. Empirical Economics 29: 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Park, RK and De, P . 2004: An alternative approach to efficiency measurement of seaports. Maritime Economics 6: 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raab, R and Lichty, R . 2002: Identifying sub-areas that comprise a greater metropolitan area: the criterion of county relative efficiency. Journal of Regional Science 42: 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roll, Y and Hayuth, Y . 1993: Port performance comparison applying data envelopment analysis (DEA). Maritime Policy and Management 20: 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seiford, LM and Thrall, R . 1990: Recent developments in DEA: the mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis. Journal of Econometrics 46: 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seiford, LM and Zhu, J . 1999: Infeasibility of super efficiency data envelopment analysis models. INFOR 37: 174–187.Google Scholar
  46. Sexton, TR, Silkman, RH and Hogan, A . 1986: Data envelopment analysis: critique and extension. In: Silkman, RH (ed). Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  47. Song, DW and Cullinane, K . 2001: The administrative and ownership structure of Asian container ports. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thanassoulis, E . 2001: Introduction to the theory and application of data envelopment analysis: a foundation text with integrated software. Kluwer Academic Publishers: AH Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson, RG, Langemeier, LN, Lee, C and Thrall, RM . 1990: The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics 46: 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thompson, RG, Singleton, FD, Thrall, RM and Smith, BA . 1986: Comparative site evaluation for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tongzon, J . 2001: Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research Part A 35: 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tongzon, J and Heng, W . 2005: Port privatisation, efficiency and competitiveness: some empirical evidence from container seaports (terminal). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39: 405–424.Google Scholar
  53. Varian, HR . 1987: Intermediate microeconomics: a modern approach. W.W. Norton & Co: New York.Google Scholar
  54. Zhu, J . 2002: Quantitative models for performance evaluation and benchmarking: data envelopment analysis with spreadsheets. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Pestana Barros
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, Technical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations