Joint estimation of technical efficiency and production risk for multi-output banks under a panel data cost frontier model

This article generalizes production risk from a single output production function to a multiple output cost frontier, which is able to examine input-oriented technical efficiencies and production risk simultaneously in the context of a panel data. Furthermore, the joint confidence interval estimates for technical efficiencies are constructed by means of multiple comparisons with the best approach. Whether taking production risk into account or not offers quite dissimilar implications in terms of the average technical efficiency measure and the identification of multiple efficient banks achieving the optimal cost frontier. It is suggested that inferences drawn on the basis of the confidence intervals of technical efficiency provide much more fruitful and insightful information than the point estimation alone. Bank specific risk parameters are found to be highly and positively correlated with fixed-effect estimates, implying that the more risk-averse a bank is, the more technically efficient it will be.

Estimates of technical inefficiency in stochastic frontier models with panel data: generalized panel jackknife estimation

Estimates of technical inefficiency based on fixed effects estimation of the stochastic frontier model with panel data are biased upward. Previous work has attempted to correct this bias using the bootstrap, but in simulations the bootstrap corrects only part of the bias. The usual panel jackknife is based on the assumption that the bias is of order T ⁻¹ and is similar to the bootstrap. We show that when there is a tie or a near tie for the best firm, the bias is of order T ^−1/2, not T ⁻¹, and this calls for a different form of the jackknife. The generalized panel jackknife is quite successful in removing the bias. However, the resulting estimates have a large variance.     

Decomposition of technical efficiency under fixed proportion technologies: an application of data envelopment analysis

In this paper, we extend the four-component stochastic frontier model to allow for global spatial dependence via the endogenous spatial autoregressive variable. Our proposed model is more general than the model considered by (Glass et al., 2016) in the sense that we include a random effect as well as a permanent efficiency component. With the spatial autoregressive specification, our model is able to capture the asymmetric efficiency spillovers and also decompose the persistent/transient inefficiencies into direct and indirect efficiencies. Moreover, we also investigate the marginal effects of the exogenous variables on the persistent/transient efficiency. We suggest a maximum simulated likelihood method to estimate the frontier parameters of the model, and we predict the efficiencies using the simulated estimator. Monte Carlo simulations reveal that the suggested estimator performs well in finite samples. An empirical application is considered to illustrate the usefulness of our proposed model and method.

     

Measurement of technical efficiency in farrow-to-finish swine production using multi-activity network data envelopment analysis: evidence from Taiwan

This study aims to propose a dynamic multi-activity network data development analysis (DMNDEA) model to measure the technical efficiency of farrow-to-finish swine production in Taiwan. Production phases are explicitly divided into two activities; namely, the breed-to-farrow phase and the wean-to-finish phase. By using this model, the problem of shared inputs and dynamic intermediates among activities that characterize pig production are taken into account in an integrated framework, simultaneously with the consideration of non-zero slack, allowing us to examine aspects of production in a more comprehensive and factual manner. For the empirical results based on sample data from 2006 to 2007, it is shown that the overall technical inefficiencies obtained from DMNDEA are not obviously different from those obtained using a traditional one-stage model. However, the DMNDEA results explicitly show us that the sources of inefficiency for each farm are different. Furthermore, second-stage bootstrapping regression results reveal that the determinants of efficiency for each production phase are not the same, indicating the need to identify the influential factors for each production phase separately.     

Technical efficiency in competing panel data models: a study of Norwegian grain farming

Estimation of technical efficiency is widely used in empirical research using both cross-sectional and panel data. Although several stochastic frontier models for panel data are available, only a few of them are normally applied in empirical research. In this article we chose a broad selection of such models based on different assumptions and specifications of heterogeneity, heteroskedasticity and technical inefficiency. We applied these models to a single dataset from Norwegian grain farmers for the period 2004–2008. We also introduced a new model that disentangles firm effects from persistent (time-invariant) and residual (time-varying) technical inefficiency. We found that efficiency results are quite sensitive to how inefficiency is modeled and interpreted. Consequently, we recommend that future empirical research should pay more attention to modeling and interpreting inefficiency as well as to the assumptions underlying each model when using panel data.     

Joint estimation of technology choice and technical efficiency: an application to organic and conventional dairy farming

This paper proposes an econometric framework for joint estimation of technology and technology choice/adoption decision. The procedure takes into account the endogeneity of technology choice, which is likely to depend on inefficiency. Similarly, output from each technology depends on inefficiency. The effect of the dual role of inefficiency is estimated using a single-step maximum likelihood method. The proposed model is applied to a sample of conventional and organic dairy farms in Finland. The main findings are: the conventional technology is more productive, ceteris paribus; organic farms are, on average, less efficient technically than conventional farms; both efficiency and subsidy are found to be driving forces behind adoption of organic technology.