Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aggregation of Efficiency and Productivity: From Firm to Sector and Higher Levels

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Production Economics

Abstract

Here we consider various cases where researchers are interested in measuring aggregate efficiency or productivity levels or their changes for a group of decision making units. These could be entire industry composed of individual firms, banks, hospitals, or a region composed of sub-regions or countries, or particular sub-groups of these units within a group, e.g., sub-groups of public vs. private or regulated vs. non-regulated firms, banks or hospitals within the same industry, etc. Such analysis requires solutions to the aggregation problem—some theoretically justified approaches that can connect individual measures to aggregate measures. Various solutions are offered in the literature and our goal is to try to coherently summarize at least some of them in this chapter. This material should be interesting not only for theorists but also (and perhaps more so) for applied researchers, as it provides exact formulas and intuitive explanations for various measures of group efficiency, group scale elasticity and group productivity indexes and refers to original papers for more details.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 339.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    A different area of the aggregation questions that focuses on the aggregation of inputs or aggregation of outputs for a firm (e.g., to reduce the dimension of the model) is not considered here and can be found in Färe et al. [6], Färe and Zelenyuk [11], Tauer [50], Wilson [52] and the references therein. We also do not consider the question of aggregation of indexes with respect to different references (e.g., time periods) for the same firm, which can be found in ? ] and the references therein.

  2. 2.

    This chapter is a substantially revised, extended and elaborated material that I presented earlier, in Chapter 5 of Sickles and Zelenyuk [46].

  3. 3.

    While this is a generic example, a reader might have realized that many industries in the real world have a similar composition, often resembling the so-called ‘Pareto principle’, more casually known as ‘the 80/20 rule’ postulating that about 80% share (e.g., of wealth, sales, etc.) is taken up by about 20% of members of a group.

  4. 4.

    Lower efficiency of large firms is not unusual and often was reported in the literature. It can arise, for example, due to the greater complexity of being a larger organization involving greater levels of hierarchy and thus implying potentially greater principal-agent problems or requiring more inputs or higher costs than needed for producing the same level and the same quality of output.

  5. 5.

    Indeed, later in this chapter we will see that output shares are more coherent with output orientation, while for the input orientation it would be more natural to use the cost shares.

  6. 6.

    This is not entirely surprising, e.g., recall that very strong assumptions are needed to establish positive aggregation results in consumer theory.

  7. 7.

    In the discussion of economic theoretical foundation here we mainly use framework developed by Shephard [44, 45] and further refined in many works and concisely outlined in Färe and Primont [10] and Sickles and Zelenyuk [46].

  8. 8.

    For theoretical results we do not require convexity of Ψk, although when implementing in practice one may impose it when choosing a particular estimator or particular functional form for technology.

  9. 9.

    Note that for the aggregation results, a necessary assumption is the so-called ‘Law of One Price’, i.e., here it implies that all firms face the same output prices.

  10. 10.

    We use ⊕ to distinguish the summation of sets (also called ‘Minkowski summation’) from the standard summation, e.g., see Oks and Sharir [36].

  11. 11.

    E.g., see Krein and Smulian [25], Schneider [43], and a more recent work of Oks and Sharir [36], as well as references therein. For other examples involving Minkowski summation in economics, see Shapley–Folkman-Starr theorem and related results (Starr [49]).

  12. 12.

    In the input oriented context, such a benchmark will be the cost function, while in the framework where both input and output vectors can be changed when measuring efficiency (e.g., for efficiency based on the directional distance function or hyperbolic measures), the natural benchmark will be the profit function. We will briefly discuss these cases later in the chapter.

  13. 13.

    To be precise, Li and Ng [29] used a similar framework, yet without explicit relationship to the maximal revenue defined on the sum of the output sets and without noticing the theoretical link via the analogue of Koopmans [24] theorem, and focusing on the DEA framework.

  14. 14.

    Also see Mayer and Zelenyuk [30, 32] for extensions of this approach.

  15. 15.

    Again, here we focus on the output orientation case and similar developments can be done for the input orientation case. See Mayer and Zelenyuk [30, 32] for some of these details.

  16. 16.

    From theory, it is known that under the same weighting scheme, the geometric mean is larger than the harmonic mean but smaller than the arithmetic mean. Note however that the aggregate MPI in (65) involves products of ratios of the harmonic means and so it can be smaller or greater than the aggregate MPI obtained via a geometric mean as in (66), depending on the relative magnitudes that appear in the numerators and denominators of (65). Both means are approximately equal (to the arithmetic mean) in the sense of first order approximation around unity.

  17. 17.

    One should however be careful aggregating when there are scores equal or very close to zero: both geometric and harmonic averages completely fail if at least one element is zero and may yield an unreasonably low aggregate score if at least one element is very close to zero (even if many others have large efficiency or productivity scores), unless they are ‘neutralized’ by a very low weight in the aggregation, as can be done with weighted aggregates. In such cases, using arithmetic aggregation, which is less sensitive to the outliers, could also be a better solution.

  18. 18.

    E.g., see Panzar and Willig [38].

  19. 19.

    See Färe et al. [5], Färe and Primont [10].

  20. 20.

    See Färe et al. [5], Zelenyuk [57] for more details on this.

  21. 21.

    This technology aggregation structure was earlier used in Li and Ng [29], Blackorby and Russell [1] and goes back to Koopmans [24].

  22. 22.

    More recently, another definition of aggregate technology, which involved the union of technology sets, was considered by Peyrache [39, 40], which later was shownto be equivalent to the Koopmans-type aggregate technology \(\Psi _{\tau }^{*}\), under standard regularity conditions of production theory (see ? ]).

  23. 23.

    Here, note that we allow for different time subscripts for inputs and outputs for the framework to be compatible with the HMPI context.

  24. 24.

    Also see Zelenyuk [54] for this and other related results.

References

  1. Blackorby, C., Russell, R. R., 1999. Aggregation of efficiency indices. Journal of Productivity Analysis 12 (1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooper, W., Huang, Z., Li, S., Parker, B., Pastor, J., 2007. Efficiency aggregation with enhanced Russell measures in data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 41 (1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Domar, E. D., 1961. On the measurement of technological change. The Economic Journal 71 (284), 709–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lindgren, B., Roos, P., 1994. Productivity developments in Swedish hospitals: A Malmquist output index approach. In: Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Lewin, A. Y., Seiford, L. M. (Eds.), Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 253–272.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. A. K., 1986. Scale economies and duality. Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie / Journal of Economics 46 (2), 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Zelenyuk, V., 2004. Aggregation bias and its bounds in measuring technical efficiency. Applied Economics Letters 11 (10), 657–660. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485042000207243

  7. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Zelenyuk, V., 2004. Aggregation of cost efficiency: Indicators and indexes across firms. Academia Economic Papers 32 (3), 395–411.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Zelenyuk, V., 2008. Aggregation of nerlovian profit indicator. Applied Economics Letters 15 (11), 845–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Färe, R., Karagiannis, G., 2014. A postscript on aggregate Farrell efficiencies. European Journal of Operational Research 233 (3), 784–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Färe, R., Primont, D., 1995. Multi-Output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Färe, R., Zelenyuk, V., 2002. Input aggregation and technical efficiency. Applied Economics Letters 9 (10), 635–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Färe, R., Zelenyuk, V., 2003. On aggregate Farrell efficiencies. European Journal of Operational Research 146 (3), 615–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Färe, R., Zelenyuk, V., 2005. On Farrell’s decomposition and aggregation. International Journal of Business and Economics 4 (2), 167–171.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Färe, R., Zelenyuk, V., 2007. Extending Färe and Zelenyuk (2003). European Journal of Operational Research 179 (2), 594–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Färe, R., Zelenyuk, V., 2012. Aggregation of scale elasticities across firms. Applied Economics Letters 19 (16), 1593–1597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farrell, M. J., 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Jornal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 120 (3), 253–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ferrier, G., Leleu, H., Valdmanis, V., 2009. Hospital capacity in large urban areas: Is there enough in times of need? Journal of Productivity Analysis 32 (2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Førsund, F. R., Hjalmarsson, L., 1979. Generalised Farrell measures of efficiency: An application to milk processing in Swedish dairy plants. The Economic Journal 89 (354), 294–315. URL http://ww.jstor.org/stable/2231603

  19. Fre, R., Karagiannis, G., 2017. The denominator rule for share-weighting aggregation. European Journal of Operational Research 260 (3), 1175–1180. URL https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v260y2017i3p1175-1180.html

  20. Hall, M. J., Kenjegalievaa, K. A., Simper, R., 2012. Environmental factors affecting Hong Kong banking: A post-Asian financial crisis efficiency analysis. Global Finance Journal 23 (3), 184–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Henderson, D. J., Zelenyuk, V., 2007. Testing for (efficiency) catching-up. Southern Economic Journal 73 (4), 1003–1019. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111939

  22. Karagiannis, G., 2015. On structural and average technical efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis 43 (3), 259–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karagiannis, G., Lovell, C. A. K., 2015. Productivity measurement in radial DEA models with a single constant input. European Journal of Operational Research 251 (1), 323–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Koopmans, T., 1957. Three Essays on The State of Economic Science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krein, M., Smulian, V., 1940. On regulary convex sets in the space conjugate to a Banach space. Annals of Mathematics 41 (2), 556–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuosmanen, T., Cherchye, L., Sipiläinen, T., 2006. The law of one price in data envelopment analysis: Restricting weight flexibility across firms. European Journal of Operational Research 170 (3), 735–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuosmanen, T., Kortelainen, M., Sipiläinen, T., Cherchye, L., 2010. Firm and industry level profit efficiency analysis using absolute and uniform shadow prices. European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2), 584–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li, S. K., Cheng, Y. S., 2007. Solving the puzzles of structural efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research 180 (2), 713–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Li, S.-K., Ng, Y. C., 1995. Measuring the productive efficiency of a group of firms. International Advances in Economic Research 1 (4), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mayer, A., Zelenyuk, V., 2014. Aggregation of Malmquist productivity indexes allowing for reallocation of resources. European Journal of Operational Research 238 (3), 774–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mayer, A., Zelenyuk, V., 2014. An aggregation paradigm for Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indexes, cEPA Working Paper No. WP01/2014.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mayer, A., Zelenyuk, V., 2017. Aggregation of individual efficiency measures and productivity indices. In: Greene, W. H., ten Raa, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Performance Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, London, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mugera, A., Ojede, A., 2014. Technical efficiency in African agriculture: Is it catching up or lagging behind? Journal of International Development 26 (6), 779–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mussard, S., Peypoch, N., 2006. On multi-decomposition of the aggregate Malmquist productivity index. Economics Letters 91 (3), 436–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nesterenko, V., Zelenyuk, V., 2007. Measuring potential gains from reallocation of resources. Journal of Productivity Analysis 28 (1–2), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Oks, E., Sharir, M., 2006. Minkowski sums of monotone and general simple polygons. Discrete and Computational Geometry 35 (2), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pachkova, E. V., 2009. Restricted reallocation of resources. European Journal of Operational Research 196 (3), 1049–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Panzar, J. C., Willig, R. D., 1977. Free entry and the sustainability of natural monopoly. The Bell Journal of Economics 8 (1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Peyrache, A., 2013. Industry structural inefficiency and potential gains from mergers and break-ups: A comprehensive approach. European Journal of Operational Research 230 (2), 422–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Peyrache, A., 2015. Cost constrained industry inefficiency. European Journal of Operational Research 247 (3), 996–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pilyavsky, A., Staat, M., 2008. Efficiency and productivity change in Ukrainian health care. Journal of Productivity Analysis 29 (2), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Raa, T. T., 2011. Benchmarking and industry performance. Journal of Productivity Analysis 36 (3), 285–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schneider, R., 1993. Convex Bodies: The Brunn-Minkowski Theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Shephard, R. W., 1953. Cost and Production Functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shephard, R. W., 1970. Theory of Cost and Production Functions. Princeton studies in mathematical economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sickles, R., Zelenyuk, V., 2018. Measurement of Productivity and Efficiency: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Simar, L., Zelenyuk, V., 2007. Statistical inference for aggregates of Farrell-type efficiencies. Journal of Applied Econometrics 22 (7), 1367–1394. URL http://ideas.repec.org/a/jae/japmet/v22y2007i7p1367-1394.html

  48. Simar, L., Zelenyuk, V., 2018. Central limit theorems for aggregate efficiency. Operations Research 166 (1), 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Starr, R. M., 2008. Shapley-Folkman theorem. In: Durlauf, S. N., Blume, L. E. (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 317–318.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tauer, L. W., 2001. Input aggregation and computed technical efficiency. Applied Economics Letters 8, 295–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Weill, L., 2008. On the inefficiency of European socialist economies. Journal of Productivity Analysis 29 (2), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wilson, P. W., 2018. Dimension reduction in nonparametric models of production. European Journal of Operational Research 267 (1), 349–367. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221717310317

  53. Ylvinger, S., 2000. Industry performance and structural efficiency measures: Solutions to problems in firm models. European Journal of Operational Research 121 (1), 164–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zelenyuk, V., 2002. Essays in efficiency and productivity analysis of economic systems. Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zelenyuk, V., 2006. Aggregation of Malmquist productivity indexes. European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2), 1076–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zelenyuk, V., 2013. A scale elasticity measure for directional distance function and its dual: Theory and DEA estimation. European Journal of Operational Research 228 (3), 592–600. URL http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v228y2013i3p592-600.html

  57. Zelenyuk, V., June 2013. A note on equivalences in measuring returns to scale. International Journal of Business and Economics 12 (1), 85–89. URL http://ideas.repec.org/a/ijb/journl/v12y2013i1p85-89.html

  58. Zelenyuk, V., 2015. Aggregation of scale efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research 240 (1), 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (CEPA) at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Valentin Zelenyuk

Authors
  1. Valentin Zelenyuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentin Zelenyuk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Subhash C. Ray

  2. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Robert G. Chambers

  3. Department of Economics, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA

    Subal C. Kumbhakar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Zelenyuk, V. (2022). Aggregation of Efficiency and Productivity: From Firm to Sector and Higher Levels. In: Ray, S.C., Chambers, R.G., Kumbhakar, S.C. (eds) Handbook of Production Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3455-8_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation