Stochastic Efficiency Measurement: The Curse of Theoretical Consistency

References

• Ajibefun, Igbekele A., George E. Battese and Adebiyi G. Daramola (2002), “Determinants of technical efficiency in smallholder food crop farming: Application of stochastic frontier production function”, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 41: 225–240.
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez, Antonio and Carlos Arias (2004), “Technical efficiency and farm size: A conditional analysis”, Agricultural Economics 30: 241–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, William A. (2002), “Tastes and technology: Curvature is not sufficient for regularity”, Journal of Econometrics 108: 199–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, William A., Milka Kirova, and, Meenakshi Pasupathy (1996), “Estimating policy invariant deep parameters in the financial sector, when risk and growth matter”, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 27: 1402–1430.
   Google Scholar
• Battese, George E., and Sumiter S. Broca (1997), “Functional forms of stochastic frontier production functions and models for technical inefficiency effects: A comparative study for wheat farmers in Pakistan”, Journal of Productivity Analysis 8: 395–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackorby, Charles, and Erwin W. E. Diewert (1979), “Expenditure functions, local duality, and second order approximations”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47: 579–601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brümmer, Bernhard, and Jens-Peter Loy (2000), “The technical efficiency impact of farm credit programmes: A case study of Northern Germany”, Journal of Agricultural Economics 51: 405–418.
   Google Scholar
• Brümmer, Bernhard (2001), “Estimating confidence intervals for technical efficiency: The case of private farms in Slovenia”, European Review of Agricultural Economics 28: 285–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, Robert (1988), Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christopoulos, Dimitris, John Loizides, and Efthymios G. Tsionas (2001), “Efficiency in European railways: Not as inefficient as one might think”, Journal of Applied Economics 4: 63–88.
   Google Scholar
• Coelli, Tim, S. Prasado, and George E. Battese, (1998), An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Boston., Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, Steven, J. Airola, and Tipu Manzur (2003), “The effect of institutional form on airport governance efficiency”, Department of Economics, University of Houston.
   Google Scholar
• Diewert, Erwin W. and Terence J. Wales (1987), “Flexible functional forms and global curvature conditions”, Econometrica 55: 43–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diewert, Erwin W. (1973), “Functional forms for profit and transformation functions”, Journal of Economic Theory 6: 284–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diewert, Erwin W. (1974), “Functional forms for revenue and factor requirements”, International Economic Review 15: 119–130.
   Google Scholar
• Feger, Fritz (2000), A Behavioural Model of the German Compound Feed Industry: Functional Form, Flexibility, and Regularity, dissertation, Göttingen (http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2000/feger/).
   Google Scholar
• Fuss, Melvyn, and Daniel McFadden (1978), Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, Vol. 1: The Theory of Production, Vol. 2: Applications of the Theory of Production, Amsterdam, North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Gallant, A. Ronald, and Gene H. Golub (1984), “Imposing curvature restrictions on flexible functional forms”, Journal of Econometrics 26: 295–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanoch, Giora (1970), “Generation of new production functions through duality”, Discussion Paper 118, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Jorgenson, Dale W., and Berta M. Fraumeni, (1981), “Relative prices and technical change”, in E. R. Berndt, ed., Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution, Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kumbhakar, Subal (1989), “Estimation of technical efficiency using flexible functional form and panel data”, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 7: 253–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumbhakar, Subal C. and Lennart Hjalmarsson (1993), “Technical efficiency and technical progress in Swedish dairy farms”, in H. O. Fried, C.A.K. Lovell and S.S. Schmidt, eds., The Measurement of Productive Efficiency — Techniques and Applications, New York, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kumbhakar, Subal C., and Almas Heshmati (1995), “Efficiency measurement in Swedish dairy farms: An application of rotating panel data, 1976–88”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77: 660–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumbhakar, Subal C., and Knox C. A. Lovell (2000), Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, Oh. S., and Hyunok Lee (2004), “Productivity improvement in Korean rice farming: Parametric and non-parametric analysis”, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 48: 323–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, Lawrence J. (1978), “Testing and imposing monotonicity, convexity and quasi-convexity constraints”, in: Fuss, Melvyn; and D. McFadden, eds., (1978), Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, Amsterdam, North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, Lawrence J. (1986), “Functional forms in econometric model building”, in Z. Griliches and M. D. Intriligator, eds., Handbook of Econometrics vol. 3, New York, North-Holland Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Morey, Edward R. (1986), “An introduction to checking, testing, and imposing curvature properties: The true fundtion and the estimated function”, Canadian Journal of Economics 19: 207–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Donnell, Chris J. (2002), “Parametric estimation of technical and allocative efficiency in U.S. Agriculture”, in: Ball, E. and G. W. Norton, eds., Agricultural Productivity: Measurement and Sources of Growth, Boston, Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Pierani, Pierpaolo, and Pier L. Rizzi (2001), “Technology and efficiency in a panel of Italian dairy farms: A SGM restricted cost function approach”, Agricultural Economics 29: 195–209.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, David L., and Terence J. Wales (1998), “A simple method for imposing local curvature in some flexible consumer demand systems”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 16: 331–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, David L., and Terence J. Wales (1999), “Flexible and semiflexible consumer demands with quadratic Engel curves”, The Review of Economics and Statistics 81: 277–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, David L., and Terence J. Wales (2000), “Imposing local concavity in the translog and generalized Leontief cost functions”, Economic Letters 67: 253–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauer, Johannes, and Klaus Frohberg (2006), “Allocative efficiency of rural water supply - A globally flexible SGM cost frontier”, Journal of Productivity Analysis (forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Strang, Gerald (1976), Linear Algebra and its Applications, New York, Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Terrell, Dek (1995), “Flexibility and regularity properties of the asymptotically ideal production model”, Econometric Reviews 14: 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Terrell, Dek (1996), “Incorporating monotonicity and concavity conditions in flexible functional forms”, Journal of Applied Econometrics 11: 179–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsionas, Efthymios G. and George C. Bitros (2004), “A consistent approach to cost efficiency measurement”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 66: 49–69.
   Google Scholar
• Wales, Terence J. (1977), “On the flexibility of flexible functional forms”, Journal of Econometrics 5: 183–193.
   Google Scholar
• Wiley, David E., William H. Schmidt, and William J. Bramble (1973), “Studies of a class of covariance structure models”, Journal of the American Statistical Association 68: 317–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar