Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The efficiency of higher education institutions in England revisited: comparing alternative measures

  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) has often been used to evaluate efficiency in the context of higher education institutions. Yet there are numerous alternative nonparametric measures of efficiency available. This paper compares efficiency scores obtained for institutions of higher education in England, 2013–2014, using three different methods: the original Charnes et al. method and two slacks-based methods (SBM-Min and SBM-Max) developed by Tone. The findings suggest that results are highly sensitive to methodology chosen. Hence caution is required in applying the results in any policy context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agasisti, T., & Johnes, G. (2009). Beyond frontiers: Comparing the efficiency of higher education decision making units across more than one country. Education Economics, 17, 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrell, P. J., & Bogetoft, P. (2013). Benchmarking and regulation (CORE Discussion Paper). Retrieved from https://doi.org/uclouvain.be

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanassopoulos, A., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 5, 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Models for the estimation of technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2007). Efficiency and productivity in European universities: Exploring trade-offs in the strategic profile. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation. (pp. 144–206). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio, C., Bonaccorsi, A., & Simar L. (2014). Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach. Retrieved from https://doi.org/risis.eu

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1978). Measuring the technical efficiency of production. Journal of Economic Theory, 19, 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 120, 253–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flegg, A. T., Allen, D. O., Field, K., & Thurlow, T. W. (2014). Measuring the efficiency of British universities: A multi-period data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 12, 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadi-Vencheh, A., Jablonsky, J., & Esmaeilzadeh, A. (2015). The slack based measure model based on supporting hyperplanes of production possibility set. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 6522–6529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2015). Finances of higher education institutions. Cheltenham: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, G., & Johnes, J. (2013). Efficiency in the higher education sector: A technical exploration. Department of Business, Innovation and Skills Research Paper 113. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.gov.uk

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25, 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, J. (2008). Efficiency and production change in the English higher education sector from 1996/7 to 2004/5. Manchester School, 76, 653–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joumady, O., & Ris, C. (2005). Performance in European higher education: A non-parametric production frontier approach. Education Economics, 13, 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, J. T., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (1999). An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure. European Journal of Operational Research, 115, 596–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (1998). Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: How to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Management Science, 44, 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C., & Street, A. (2006). Analysis of secondary school efficiency: Final report. Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from https://doi.org/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis, E., Kortelainen, M., Johnes, G., & Johnes, J. (2011). Costs and efficiency of higher education institutions in England: A DEA analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 1282–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2001). A slacks based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2015). Slacks based measure variations revisited. INFORMS Conference, Philadelphia, November 3. Retrieved from https://doi.org/grips.repo.nii.ac.jp

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolszczak-Derlacz, J., & Parteka, A. (2011). Efficiency of European public higher education institutions: A two-stage multicountry approach. Scientometrics, 89, 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geraint Johnes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnes, G., Tone, K. The efficiency of higher education institutions in England revisited: comparing alternative measures. Tert Educ Manag 23, 191–205 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1203457

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1203457

Keywords

Navigation