2011
DOI: 10.1093/ajae/aaq125
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Reduced‐Form Model for Dynamic Efficiency Measurement: Application to Dairy Farms in Germany and The Netherlands

Abstract: The stochastic distance function model is extended to allow for the inefficiency component of the error term to be autocorrelated, as implied by a dynamic model of firm behavior. The autocorrelation parameter can then be interpreted as a measure of the persistence of inefficiency. The model is viewed from a state-space perspective, and Kalman filtering techniques are proposed for estimation. The model is applied to two panels of dairy farms from Germany and the Netherlands. The results suggest a very high degr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
53
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
11
53
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The other 44% of farms are found to be scale-efficient, i.e., they operate at unitary constant returns to scale. Our findings are generally consistent with earlier results reported in Brümmer et al (2002) and Emvalomatis et al (2011) who also document the evidence of increasing returns to scale among Dutch dairy farms, although no previous study reports farm-level estimates of scale economies providing only average estimates thereof.…”
Section: Returns To Scalesupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The other 44% of farms are found to be scale-efficient, i.e., they operate at unitary constant returns to scale. Our findings are generally consistent with earlier results reported in Brümmer et al (2002) and Emvalomatis et al (2011) who also document the evidence of increasing returns to scale among Dutch dairy farms, although no previous study reports farm-level estimates of scale economies providing only average estimates thereof.…”
Section: Returns To Scalesupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Our average estimate of technical change falls in the middle between those reported for Dutch dairy farms by earlier studies that do not account for the by-production of undesirable outputs. For instance, Brümmer et al (2002) report the average annual rate of technical progress of 0.53% in 1991-1994, whereas Emvalomatis et al (2011) report the rate of 1.25% per annum in 1995-2005. 7 We find that Model (II) reports slightly lower estimates of technical advancement than does our preferred hedonic-output-index-based model.…”
Section: Technical Change Decompositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Emvalomatis et al . () and Emvalomatis () provide estimates for the long‐run efficiency scores assuming that all firms reach a common long‐run efficiency level. In contrast, the study of Galán et al .…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the studies might provide approximation for the dynamic of inefficiencies, the specifications are arbitrary approximations with little theoretical justifications. Many researchers aim to provide some economic interpretations regarding the dynamic patterns using an AR(1) process (see Ahn and Sickles (2000), Emvalomatis et al (2011) and Tsionas (2006)). Ahn and Sickles (2000) propose an AR(1) of an technical inefficiency as follows u it = ρu it−1 + ζ it , where 0 < ρ < 1 measures a firm's ability to adjust its past period inefficiency level.…”
Section: The Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ahn and Sickles (2000) propose an AR(1) of an technical inefficiency as follows u it = ρu it−1 + ζ it , where 0 < ρ < 1 measures a firm's ability to adjust its past period inefficiency level. Ahn and Sickles (2000) and Emvalomatis et al (2011) models are not designed for incorporating the variables affecting inefficiency, while Tsionas (2006) does. Our model specification differs from Tsionas's (2006) in the sense that the base inefficiencies are not identical across DMUs, and the effects of environmental variables are not time-invariant and the same across DMUs.…”
Section: The Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%