Advertisement

Efficiency and productivity change of regional tax offices in Spain: an empirical study using Malmquist–Luenberger and Luenberger indices

  • Juan Aparicio
  • Jose Manuel CorderoEmail author
  • Carlos Díaz-Caro
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

The paper presents an innovative empirical application to assess the efficiency of regional tax offices in Spain. The existing evidence about the performance of those administrative units is still limited; thus, our aim is to contribute to extend this line of research by incorporating three relevant issues into our empirical analysis. First, we consider the number of complaints against tax authority decisions as a quality measure of tax management. Since the evaluated units should aim to minimize the number of complaints, this variable represents an undesirable output; thus, we define a model that is adaptable to the special features of this unconventional output. Second, our empirical analysis covers the period 2005–2014; thus, we can analyze the productivity change across this 10-year period including different phases of the economic cycle. Finally, seeking robustness, we use enhanced versions of the Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index and the Luenberger productivity indicator that allow us to overcome some of the drawbacks suffered by the original approach. The results obtained with both indices are very similar and indicate that during the evaluated period tax offices suffered a slight worsening in terms of productivity, especially during the years previous to the economic crisis (2005–2008). This regression was mainly due to the technical regression experienced by the majority of units during those years.

Keywords

Efficiency Tax offices Public management Productivity change Administrative services Operations research 

JEL Classification

H21 H71 C61 

Notes

Funding

J.M. Cordero and C. Díaz-Caro thank the financial support from the Junta de Extremadura through Grant IB16171. J. Aparicio thanks the financial support from the Spanish Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad), the State Research Agency (Agencia Estatal de Investigación) and the European Regional Development Fund (Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional) under Grant MTM2016-79765-P (AEI/FEDER, UE).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264Google Scholar
  2. Aparicio J, Pastor JT, Zofio JL (2013) On the inconsistency of the Malmquist–Luenberger index. Eur J Oper Res 229(3):738–742Google Scholar
  3. Aparicio J, Barbero J, Kapelko M, Pastor JT, Zofío JL (2017) Testing the consistency and feasibility of the standard Malmquist–Luenberger index: environmental productivity in world air emissions. J Environ Manag 196:148–160Google Scholar
  4. Arabi B, Munisamy S, Emrouznejad A (2015) A new slacks-based measure of Malmquist–Luenberger index in the presence of undesirable outputs. Omega 51:29–37Google Scholar
  5. Banker RD, Chang H (2006) The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units. Eur J Oper Res 175(2):1311–1320Google Scholar
  6. Barros CP (2005) Performance measurement in tax offices with a stochastic frontier model. J Econ Stud 32(6):497–510Google Scholar
  7. Barros CP (2006) Measuring total productivity in Lisbon tax offices with a Malmquist index. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management 51(1):25–46Google Scholar
  8. Bouckaert G (1993) Efficiency measurement from a management perspective: a case of the Civil Registry Office in Flanders. Int Rev Admin Sci 59:11–27Google Scholar
  9. Cazals C, Fève F, Florens JP, Simar L (2016) Nonparametric instrumental variables estimation for efficiency frontier. J Economet 190(2):349–359Google Scholar
  10. Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1996) Benefit and distance functions. J Econ Theory 70(2):407–419Google Scholar
  11. Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1998) Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. J Optim Theory Appl 98(2):351–364Google Scholar
  12. Chung Y, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 51:229–240Google Scholar
  13. Colino C (2008) The Spanish model of devolution and regional governance: evolution, motivations and effects on policy making. Policy Politics 36(4):573–586Google Scholar
  14. Conde-Ruíz I, Marín C (2013) The fiscal crisis in Spain, in Monastiriotis, V. et al. Austerity measures in crisis countries—results and impact on mid-term development. Intereconomics 48(1):4–32Google Scholar
  15. Cordero JM, Pedraja F, Salinas J (2011) Efficiency assessment of real estate cadastral offices using DEA. Int Rev Admin Sci 77(4):802–824Google Scholar
  16. Dapko KH, Jeanneaux P, Latruffe L (2016) Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: recent developments, limits and future prospects in the nonparametric framework. Eur J Oper Res 250:347–359Google Scholar
  17. De Witte K, López-Torres L (2017) Efficiency in education. A review of literature and a way forward. J Oper Res Soc 68(4):339–363Google Scholar
  18. Dismuke CE, Sena V (2001) Is there a trade-off between quality and productivity? The case of diagnostic technologies in Portugal. Ann Oper Res 107:101–116Google Scholar
  19. Falavigna G, Manello A (2014) External funding, efficiency and productivity growth in public research: the case of the Italian National Research Council. Res Eval 23:33–47Google Scholar
  20. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren P, Ross P (1994) Productivity developments in Swedish hospitals: a Malmquist output index approach. In: Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY, Seiford LM (eds) Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 253–272Google Scholar
  21. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Noh DW, Weber W (2005) Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J Economet 126(2):469–492Google Scholar
  22. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Margaritis D (2008) Efficiency and productivity: Malmquist and more. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Färe R, Margaritis D, Rouse P, Roshdi I (2016) Estimating the hyperbolic distance function: a directional distance function approach. Eur J Oper Res 254:312–319Google Scholar
  24. Ferreiro J, Gómez C (2015) The economic crisis in Spain: mistakes made in the management of labour market and fiscal policy. In: Bitzenis A, Karagiannis N, Marangos J (eds) Europe in crisis. Problems, challenges and alternative perspectives. Ed Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp 259–274Google Scholar
  25. Førsund FR (2009) Good modelling of bad outputs: pollution and multiple-output production. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 3:1–38Google Scholar
  26. Førsund FR, Kittelsen SAC, Lindseth F, Edvarsen F (2006) The tax man cometh—but is he efficient? Natl Inst Econ Rev 197:106–119Google Scholar
  27. Førsund FR, Edvardsen DF, Kittelsen AC (2015) Productivity of tax offices in Norway. J Product Anal 43:269–279Google Scholar
  28. Fuentes R, Lillo-Bañuls A (2015) Smoothed bootstrap Malmquist index based on DEA model to compute productivity of tax offices. Expert Syst Appl 42(5):2442–2450Google Scholar
  29. Griffith DA (2011) Spatial autocorrelation and spatial filtering: gaining understanding through theory and scientific visualization. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. Hollingsworth B (2008) The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care delivery. Health Econ 17(10):1107–1128Google Scholar
  31. Jha R, Sahni BS (1997) Tax efficiency and productivity analysis: the case of Canadian Fiscal Federalism. Public Finance 52(2):186–197Google Scholar
  32. Jha R, Mohanty MS, Chatterjee S, Chitkara P (1999) Tax efficiency in selected Indian states. Empir Econ 24:641–654Google Scholar
  33. Katharaki M, Tsakas M (2010) Assessing the efficiency and managing the performance of Greek tax offices. J Adv Manag Res 7(1):58–75Google Scholar
  34. Kohneh AVM, Yazdani B, Kamalian A (2013) Performance measurement in governmental agencies using BSC-AHP: a case study of Civil Registry Office in Tehran. Manag Sci Lett 3(4):1255–1260Google Scholar
  35. Kumar S, Managi S (2010) Environment and productivities in developed and developing countries: the case of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. J Environ Manag 91:1580–1592Google Scholar
  36. Lewis BD (2006) Local government taxation: an analysis of administrative cost inefficiency. Bull Indones Econ Stud 42(2):213–233Google Scholar
  37. Mastromarco C, Simar L (2015) Effect of FDI and time on catching up: new insights from a conditional nonparametric frontier analysis. J Appl Economet 30(5):826–847Google Scholar
  38. Mattos E, Rocha F, Arvate P (2011) Flypaper effect revisited: evidence for tax collection efficiency in Brazilian municipalities. Estudos Econômicos (São Paulo) 41(2):239–267Google Scholar
  39. Moesen W, Persoons A (2002) Measuring and explaining the productive efficiency of tax offices: a non-parametric best practice frontier approach. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management 17:399–416Google Scholar
  40. Murty S, Russell RR (2018) Modeling emission-generating technologies: reconciliation of axiomatic and by-production approaches. Empir Econ 54(1):7–30Google Scholar
  41. Murty S, Russell RR, Levkoff SB (2012) On modeling pollution-generating technologies. J Environ Econ Manag 64:117–135Google Scholar
  42. Narbón-Perpiñá I, De Witte K (2018) Local governments’ efficiency: a systematic literature review—part I. Int Trans Oper Res 25(2):431–468Google Scholar
  43. Oh D-H (2010) A global Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index. J Prod Anal 34:183–197Google Scholar
  44. Oh M, Shon E, Kim S (2011) Productivity changes in consideration of accident costs in Seoul’s bus industry. J Adv Transp 45:219–230Google Scholar
  45. Park KH, Weber WL (2006) A note on efficiency and productivity growth in the Korean banking industry, 1992–2002. J Bank Finance 30:2371–2386Google Scholar
  46. Pastor JT, Lovell CK (2005) A global Malmquist productivity index. Econ Lett 88(2):266–271Google Scholar
  47. Pham MD, Zelenyuk V (2018) Slack-based directional distance function in the presence of bad outputs: theory and application to Vietnamese banking. Empir Econ 54(1):153–187Google Scholar
  48. Riekkinen K, Toivonen S, Krigsholm P, Hiironen J, Kolis K (2016) Future themes in the operational environment of the Finnish cadastral system. Land Use Policy 57:702–708Google Scholar
  49. Santín D, Sicilia G (2017) Dealing with endogeneity in data envelopment analysis applications. Expert Syst Appl 68:173–184Google Scholar
  50. Shaik S, Helmers GA, Langemeier MR (2002) Direct and indirect shadow price and cost estimates of nitrogen pollution abatement. J Agric Resour Econ 27(2):420–432Google Scholar
  51. Shephard RW (1953) Cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  52. Simar L, Vanhems A, Van Keilegom I (2016) Unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity in nonparametric frontier estimation. J Economet 190(2):360–373Google Scholar
  53. Teles F (2016) Local government and the bailout: reform singularities in Portugal. Eur Urban Reg Stud 23(3):455–467Google Scholar
  54. Thirtle C, Shankar B, Chitkara P, Chatterjee S, Mohanty MS (2000) Size does matter: technical and scale efficiency in Indian state tax jurisdictions. Rev Dev Econ 4(3):340–452Google Scholar
  55. Tsakas M, Katharaki M (2014) Impact of environmental factors on the efficiency of tax organizations. Serbian J Manag 9(1):31–43Google Scholar
  56. Wang K, Xian Y, Wei Y-M, Huang Z (2016) Sources of carbon productivity change: a decomposition and disaggregation analysis based on global Luenberger productivity indicator and endogenous directional distance function. Ecol Ind 66:545–555Google Scholar
  57. Yu MM, Hsu SH, Chang CC, Lee DH (2008) Productivity growth of Taiwan’s major domestic airports in the presence of aircraft noise. Transp Res E 44:543–554Google Scholar
  58. Yu C, Shi L, Wang Y, Chang Y, Cheng B (2016) The eco-efficiency of pulp and paper industry in China: an assessment based on slacks-based measure and Malmquist–Luenberger index. J Clean Prod 127:511–521Google Scholar
  59. Zabalza A, López-Laborda J (2017) The uneasy coexistence of the Spanish foral and common regional finance systems. J Reg Res 37:119–152Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Operations Research (CIO)University Miguel Hernandez of ElcheElcheSpain
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ExtremaduraBadajozSpain
  3. 3.Department of Accounting and FinanceUniversity de ExtremaduraBadajozSpain

Personalised recommendations