Far out or alone in the crowd: a taxonomy of peers in DEA

Edvardsen, Dag Fjeld; Førsund, Finn R.; Kittelsen, Sverre A.C.

doi:10.1007/s11123-007-0066-2

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining 55 appeared in the benchmark for themselves as well as when evaluating some of the other DMUs. Edvardsen, Forsund, and Kittelsen (2003) argue that using these exterior self-evaluators in a two-stage procedure may distort the results, because to assign the value of 1 to these self-evaluators is arbitrary. However, when these observations are eliminated and the three regression equations are reestimated, the results remain very similar to those reported in Table 2.…”

Section: Dea Results and Multivariate Analysis Of Efficiency Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Structure and Technical Efficiency in the Hospital Services Industry: A DEA Approach

Bates

Mukherjee

Santerre³

2006

Med Care Res Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article uses data envelopment analysis and multiple regression analysis to examine empirically the impact of various market-structure elements on the technical efficiency of the hospital services industry in various metropolitan areas of the United States. Market-structure elements include the degree of rivalry among hospitals, extent of HMO activity, and health insurer concentration. The DEA results show the typical hospital services industry experienced 11 percent inefficiency in 1999. Moreover, multiple regression analysis indicates the level of technical efficiency varied directly across metropolitan hospital services industries in response to greater HMO activity and private health insurer concentration in the state. The analysis suggests the degree of rivalry among hospitals had no marginal effect on technical efficiency at the industry level. Evidence also implies that the presence of a state Certificate of Need law was not associated with a greater degree of inefficiency in the typical metropolitan hospital services industry.

show abstract

Section: Dea Results and Multivariate Analysis Of Efficiency Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Structure and Technical Efficiency in the Hospital Services Industry: A DEA Approach

Bates

Mukherjee

Santerre³

2006

Med Care Res Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as well as the fact that these techniques employ technical methods unfamiliar to those conducting performance analyses in this setting, they are also used primarily to detect extreme or influential observations to correct sources of error rather than to rank units on their performance; they thus may be inappropriate as a means of ranking authorities in terms of their degree of performance. A simpler and more suitable method for ranking authorities using DEA follows that described by Edvardsen et al (2003) in their study of home care and nursing provision in Norwegian municipalities. In that study, all authorities calculated as inefficient in DEA are classified as poor performers as they all show relative room for improvement in terms of conserving their costs.…”

Section: Performance Rankingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Measurement in Social Care: A Comparison of Efficiency Measurement Methods

Clarkson

2006

Social Policy & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance measurement in social care is now considerably more advanced than previously. However, measurement is criticised on the basis of its presentation as neutral when, in the UK, it is part of the government's regulatory regime. However, measurement is important, especially when alternative methods may bring about different rankings of authorities to those endorsed by the recent system. This paper explores this issue through analyses of cost efficiency in English social services authorities. It concludes that the picture of authorities' performance depends on the method chosen which, it is argued, should stem from the stated aims of performance monitoring.

show abstract

“…This may be the case for unit 447 in 2002 since it is the third largest unit. The other self-evaluator, unit 738 in 2003, is also larger than average size, but may be an interior self-evaluator (see Edvardsen et al, 2003).…”

Section: Best Practice Unitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Tax Man Cometh - But is he Efficient?

Førsund

Kittelsen²,

Lindseth³

et al. 2006

National Institute Economic Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is based on a report (Førsund et al., 2005) of the project 'Productivity studies in the Norwegian tax administration' by the Frisch Centre for the Directorate of Taxes.The performance of local tax offices of Norway is studied over a three-year period applying Data Envelopment Efficiency analysis and a Malmquist productivity index. The estimates are bias-corrected using a bootstrap approach recently developed for DEA models. The results show that bias correction and the construction of confidence intervals give a quite different picture without bootstrapping. A set of best practice offices is identified for future work on finding explanations for good performance. The productivity development of individual offices is classified into the four categories: productivity improving cost increase, productivity improving cost savings, productivity decreasing cost savings and productivity decreasing cost increase.

show abstract

Far out or alone in the crowd: a taxonomy of peers in DEA

Abstract: Interior and exterior peer, Active peer and self-evaluator, DEA, Referencing zone, Nursing homes, C44, C61, D24, I19, L32,

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Market Structure and Technical Efficiency in the Hospital Services Industry: A DEA Approach

Market Structure and Technical Efficiency in the Hospital Services Industry: A DEA Approach

Performance Measurement in Social Care: A Comparison of Efficiency Measurement Methods

The Tax Man Cometh - But is he Efficient?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About