Skip to main content
Log in

Estimation of the threshold stochastic frontier model in the presence of an endogenous sample split variable

  • Published:
Journal of Productivity Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Heterogeneity among firms has been an important issue in studying firms’ technical efficiencies. If firms do not randomly fall into different groups with different technologies but by self-selection, statistically it implies the data are subject to the sample selection bias. In this paper, we generalize the stochastic frontier (SF) model to accommodate heterogeneous technologies among firms by considering the threshold SF model with an endogenous threshold variable. We discuss the econometric techniques appropriate for the threshold SF model with panel data. To determine the optimal number of regimes, we use modified the model selection criteria of Gonzalo and Pitarakis (J Econom 110(2):319–352, 2002) and investigate their finite sample performance by some Monte Carlo experiments. Finally, we also demonstrate our approach by an empirical example.

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

Notes

  1. Both assume the threshold variable is totally exogenous and does not depend on firms’ specific characteristics.

  2. The same within transformation is also used in the estimation procedure xtreg of panel fixed effect model in the STATA programming software. Another transformation is \( s_{it}^{ * } = s_{it} - \bar{s}_{i} \), which gives the same estimation results, except that regression using the current transformation contains the intercept term. The STATA program using the transformation, \( \left( {s_{it} - \bar{s}_{i}^{j} } \right) \), is also available upon a request to the author.

  3. Derivation of λ it can be found in the “Appendix”.

References

  • Alvarez A, del Corral J (2010) Identifying different technologies using a latent class model: extensive versus intensive dairy farms. Eur Rev Agric Econ 37(2):231–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amemiya T (1985) Advanced econometrics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai J (1997) Estimating multiple breaks one at a time. Econom Theory 13(3):315–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai J, Perron P (1998) Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66(1):47–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong TT-L (1994) Consistency of change-point estimators when the number of change-points in structural change models is underspecifed. Working paper, Chinese University of Hong Kong

  • Gonzalo J, Pitarakis J-Y (2002) Estimation and model selection based inference in single and multiple threshold models. J Econom 110(2):319–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W (2010) A stochastic frontier model with correction for sample selection. J Prod Anal 34(1):15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen BE (1996) Inference when a nuisance parameter is not identified under the null hypothesis. Econometrica 64(2):413–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen BE (1999) Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference. J Econom 93(2):345–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen BE (2000) Sample splitting and threshold estimation. Econometrica 68(3):575–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman AO (1964) The paternity of an index. Am Econ Rev 54(5):761

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1994) Continuous univariate distributions, vol 1, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourtellos A, Stengos T, Tan CM (2009) Structural threshold regression. Working paper

  • Kumbhakar SC, Park BU, Simar L, Tsionas EG (2007) Nonparametric stochastic frontiers: a local maximum likelihood approach. J Econom 137(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumbhakar SC, Tsionas E, Sipiläinen T (2009) Joint estimation of technology choice and technical efficiency: an application to organic and conventional dairy farming. J Prod Anal 31(3):151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orea L, Kumbhakar SC (2004) Efficiency measurement using a latent class stochastic frontier model. Empir Econ 29(1):169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitarakis J-Y (2006) Model selection uncertainty and detection of threshold effects. Stud Nonlinear Dyn Econom 10(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt MM, Lee LF (1981) The measurement and sources of technical inefficiency in the Indonesian weaving industry. J Dev Econ 153:93–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt P, Sickles RC (1984) Production frontiers and panel data. J Bus Econ Stat 2(4):367–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsionas EG, Kumbhakar SC (2004) Markov switching stochastic frontier model. Econom J 7:398–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsionas EG, Tran KC (2007) Bayesian inference in threshold stochastic frontier models. Working paper

  • Wang M-H, Huang T-H (2009) Threshold effects of financial status on the cost frontiers of financial institutions in nondynamic panels. Appl Econ 41:3389–3401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:817–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yélou C, Larue B, Tran KC (2010) Threshold effects in panel data stochastic frontier models of dairy production in Canada. Econ Model 27(3):641–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Lai gratefully acknowledges the National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC 100-2410-H-194-059) for the research support. The author thanks an anonymous referee for helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hung-pin Lai.

Appendix

Appendix

Given that υ it and e it follows a bivariate normal distribution with correlation coefficient ρ j under regime j, we may written υ it as

$$ \begin{aligned} \upsilon_{it} & = \kappa_{j} e_{it} + \xi_{it} , \\ & = \kappa_{j} {\text{E}}\left( {e_{it} |\gamma_{j - 1} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} < e_{it} \le \gamma_{j} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} } \right) + \varepsilon_{it} , \\ \end{aligned} $$

where \( \varepsilon_{it} = \kappa_{j} \left[ {e_{it} - {\text{E}}\left( {e_{it} |\gamma_{j - 1} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} < e_{it} \le \gamma_{j} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} } \right)} \right] + \xi {}_{it} \) and j = 1, …, m + 1. Then it follows from p. 156 of Johnson et al. (1994) that

$$ {\text{E}}\left( {e_{it} |\gamma_{j - 1} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} < e_{it} \le \gamma_{j} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} } \right) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}l} { - \frac{{\phi (\gamma_{1} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} )}}{{\Upphi (\gamma_{1} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} )}},\quad {\text{if}}\;j = 1;} \\ {\frac{{\phi (\gamma_{j - 1} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} ) - \phi (\gamma_{j} - \pi^{T} z_{it} )}}{{\Upphi (\gamma_{j} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} ) - \Upphi (\gamma_{j - 1} - \pi^{T} z_{it} )}},\quad {\text{if}}\;j = 2, \ldots ,m;} \\ { - \frac{{\phi (\gamma_{m} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} )}}{{\Upphi (\gamma_{m} - \pi^{\text{T}} z_{it} )}},\quad {\text{if}}\;j = m + 1.} \\ \end{array} } \right. \, $$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lai, Hp. Estimation of the threshold stochastic frontier model in the presence of an endogenous sample split variable. J Prod Anal 40, 227–237 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-012-0319-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-012-0319-6

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation