Advertisement

Integrating Consumer Satisfaction into Productivity Indexes

  • Rolf Färe
  • Shawna Grosskopf
  • Pontus Roos
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Productivity and Efficiency book series (SIPE, volume 1)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to generalize the Malmquist index of productivity to reflect information on consumer satisfaction. We accomplish this by adopting the utility indirect input distance function (proposed by Shephard in 1974) as the building block for the productivity index. This distance function seeks to minimize input use subject to both utility and production constraints. Like other Malmquist productivity indexes, this may be decomposed into technical change and efficiency change. The advantages of this preference indirect Malmquist index is that an additional quality change component may be identified, and that demand side influences can be included even without market prices.

Keywords

Distance Function Data Envelopment Analysis Technical Change Data Envelopment Analysis Model Productivity Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caves, D., L. Christensen and W.E. Diewert. “The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output and Productivity,” Econometrica (1982), 50(6), 1393–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units,” European Journal of Operations Research (1978), 2(6): 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dertouzos, M., R. Lester and R.M. Solow Made in America, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press (1989).Google Scholar
  4. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, B. Lindgren and P. Roos. “Productivity Changes in Swedish Pharmacies 1980–1989: A Nonparametric Malmquist Approach,” Journal of Productivity Analysis (1992), 3, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and P. Roos. “Productivity and Quality Changes in Swedish Pharmacies,” The International Journal of Production Economics, (1995), 39, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fixler, D. and K. Zieschang. “Incorporating Ancillary Measures of Process and Quality Changes into a Superlative Productivity Index,” Journal of Productivity Analysis (1992), 245–267.Google Scholar
  7. Karlin, S. Mathematical Methods and Theory of Games, Programming, and Economics, Vol. I, Addison-Wesley (1959).Google Scholar
  8. Malmquist, S. “Index Numbers and Indifference Surfaces”, Trabajos de Estadistica 4, 1953, 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shephard, R.W. Indirect Production Functions, Verlag Anton Hain, Meisenheim am Glan, (1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf Färe
    • 1
  • Shawna Grosskopf
    • 1
  • Pontus Roos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.R.R. Institute of Applied EconomicsMalmoSweden

Personalised recommendations