Productivity development of Norwegian institutions of higher education 2004–2013
Productivity growth of institutions of higher education is of interest for two main reasons: education is an important factor for productivity growth of the economy, and in countries where higher education is funded by the public sector, accountability of resource use is of key interest. Educational services consist of teaching, research and the “third mission” of dissemination of knowledge to the society at large. A bootstrapped Malmquist productivity change index is used to calculate productivity development for Norwegian institutions of higher education over the 10-year period 2004–2013. The confidence intervals from bootstrapping allow part of the uncertainty of point estimates stemming from sample variation to be revealed. The main result is that the majority of institutions have had a positive productivity growth over the total period. However, when comparing with growth in labour input, the impact on productivity varies a lot.
Keywordsinstitutions of higher education Farrell efficiency measures Malmquist productivity index bootstrapping
JEL ClassificationC18 C43 C61 D24 H52 I21
- Coelli TJ, Rao DS, O’Donnell CJ and Battese GE (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (second editon). Springer: New York.Google Scholar
- De Witte K and López-Torres L (2015). Efficiency in education. A review of literature and a way forward. Journal of the Operational Research Society. Pre-published 16 December 2015, doi:10.1057/jors.2015.92.
- Edvardsen DF, Førsund FR og Kittelsen SAC (2010). Effektivitets- og produktivitetsanalyser på StatRes-data [Efficiency- and productivity analysis based on StatRes data]. Rapport 2/2010, Kapittel 4, 31–47. Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research: Oslo.Google Scholar
- Edvardsen DF, Førsund FR og Kittelsen SAC (2014). Produktivitetsanalyse av universitets- og høgskolesektoren [Productivity analysis of the university and college sector]. Rapport 3/2014. Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research: Oslo.Google Scholar
- Edvardsen DF, Førsund FR, Hansen W, Kittelsen SAC and Neurauter T (2006). Productivity and regulatory reform of Norwegian electricity distribution utilities. In: Coelli T and Lawrence D (eds). Performance Measurement and Regulation of Network Utilities. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, pp. 97-131.Google Scholar
- Färe R, Grosskopf S and Lovell CAK (1994a). Production Frontiers. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M and Zhang Z (1994b). Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review 84(1):66–83.Google Scholar
- Førsund FR and Hjalmarsson L (1979). Generalised Farrell measures of efficiency: An application to milk processing in Swedish dairy plants. Economic Journal 89(354):294–315.Google Scholar
- Førsund FR and Kalhagen KO (1999). Efficiency and productivity of Norwegian colleges. In: Westermann G (ed.). Data Envelopment Analysis in the Service Sector. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag: Wiesbaden, pp. 269–308. (Also issued as Memorandum11/1999 from Department of Economics, University of Oslo).Google Scholar
- Gini C (1931). On the circular test of index numbers. Metron 9(2):3–24.Google Scholar
- Margaritis D and Smart W (2011). Productivity change in Australasian universities 1997–2005: A Malmquist analysis. Paper presented at the 52 Annual Conference of the New Zealand Association of Economics 29 June–1 July 2011, Wellington, New Zealand. http://nzae.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/Session5/54_Smart.pdf
- Nishimizu M and Page JM (1982). Total factor productivity growth, technological progress and technical efficiency change: Dimensions of productivity change in Yugoslavia 1965–78. Economic Journal 92(368):920–936.Google Scholar