Journal of Quantitative Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 525–540 | Cite as

Modeling the Education Supply Chain with Network DEA Model: The Case of Tunisia

  • Sourour RamziEmail author
Original Article


Little has been done on network DEA in education, and nobody has attempted to model the whole education supply chain using network DEA. As such the contribution of the present paper is to evaluate the efficiency of Tunisian education supply chain with a network DEA developed by Kao and Hwang (Eur J Oper Res 185:418–429, 2008). The idea consists on subdividing the education system into three sub-processes, where, primary, secondary and tertiary education are linked by intermediate variables. Input variables of the whole education system are “the number of schools” and “the number of students enrolled in the first year of basic education”. Output generated from basic education “Promoted pupils from basic education” is the only input used by secondary education. The output variable “Graduates from secondary education” is then used by tertiary education to produce the output of the whole education system which is “Graduates from tertiary education”. The results of assessment show that most governorates have a lower efficiency scores in tertiary education compared to efficiency in basic and secondary education. The results of the efficiency scores ranking demonstrate an important similarity between the ranks of the whole education system efficiency and the tertiary education efficiency. This result confirms that the inefficiency of education in Tunisia is mainly due to the inefficiency of tertiary education.


Supply chain Education DEA Network DEA 


  1. Abbott, M., and C. Doucouliagos. 2003. The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review 22 (1): 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afonso, A., M. Ayadi, and S. Ramzi. 2013. Assessing productivity performance of basic and secondary education in Tunisia: a malmquist analysis. Journal of Business & Economics 5 (1): 104–128.Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, T., A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper. 1988. Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative efficiencies of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio Economic Planning Sciences 22 (6): 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahn, T., V. Arnold, A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper. 1989. DEA and ratio efficiency analyses for public institutions of higher learning in Texas. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting Journal 5: 165–185.Google Scholar
  5. Avkiran, N.K. 2001. Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Scio-Economic Planning Sciences 35 (1): 57–80.Google Scholar
  6. Bahinipati, K., A. Kanda, and S.G. Deshmukh. 2009. Coordinated supply management: review, insights, and limitations. International Journal of Logistic Research and Applications 12 (6): 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1981. Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Management Science 27 (6): 668–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castelli, L., R. Pesenti, and W. Ukovich. 2004. DEA-like models for the efficiency evaluation of hierarchically structured units. European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2): 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Celik, O., and A. Ecer. 2009. Efficiency in accounting education: evidence from Turkish Universities. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (5): 614–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, T.Y., P.H. Chung, and S.S. Hsu. 2012. Two-stage performance model for evaluating the managerial efficiency of tertiary education: Application by the Taiwanese tourism and leisure department. Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2): 168–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Färe, R., and G. Whittaker. 1995. An intermediate input model of dairy production using complex survey data. Journal of Agriculture Economics 46 (2): 201–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gander, J.P. 1995. Academic research and teaching productivities: A case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 49 (3): 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kao, C., and S.N. Hwang. 2008. Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan. European Journal of Operational Research 185: 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liang, L., Z.Q. Li, W.D. Cook, and J. Zhu. 2011. Data envelopment analysis efficiency in two-stage networks with feedback. IIE Transactions 43 (5): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu, J.S., L.Y. Lu, W.L. Lu, and B. Lin. 2013. A survey of DEA applications. Omega 41 (5): 893–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mohamed Ali, S.M., and S. Mahsa. 2013. Network DEA: an application to analysis of academic performance. Journal of Industrial Engineering International 9 (1): 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ramzi, S., and M. Ayadi. 2016. Assessment of universities efficiencies using data envelopment analysis: weights restrictions and super-efficiency measure. Journal of Applied Management and Investments 5 (1): 40–58.Google Scholar
  18. Rayeni, M.M., and F.H. Saljooghi. 2010. Network Data envelopment analysis model for estimating efficiency and productivity in universities. Journal of Computer Science 6 (11): 1252–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seiford, L.M., and J. Zhu. 1999. Profitability and Marketability of the Top 55 U.S. Commercial Banks. Management Science 45 (9): 1270–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang, C.H., R.D. Gopal, and S. Zionts. 1997. Use of Data Envelopment Analysis in assessing Information Technology impact on firm performance. Annals of Operations Research 73:191–213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Econometric Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UAQUAP, ISG, University of TunisTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations