Social Indicators Research

, Volume 134, Issue 2, pp 747–770 | Cite as

A Non-radial DEA Index for Peruvian Regional Competitiveness

  • Vincent Charles
  • Guillermo Díaz


In this paper, we propose a method to measure competitiveness performance at the subnational level, with an application to Peruvian regions. For this, we propose a benefit-of-the-doubt composite index that summarizes the information of several indicators that characterize competitiveness. It is based on an optimization approach, using data enveloping analysis (DEA) techniques, so that each indicator is weighted in an endogenous way, and each unit is evaluated in the most favourable light. Our proposed index is a non-radial variant of the typical DEA scores, which avoids the traditional pitfalls of DEA-based composite indices, such as unreasonable weights. Additionally, we propose a meta-frontier approach in order to compare the competitiveness performances across different periods of evaluation. Our assessments of the Peruvian regions’ competitiveness performance improve on the results of traditional DEA methods, which award high marks to regions with very heterogeneous performance (i.e., regions with very high scores in some indicators, and very poor in others). Additionally, the comparison of the performance across time shows a general decrease in the average competitiveness between 2008 and 2014 of the Peruvian regions.


Regional competitiveness Competitiveness index Competitiveness performance Economic growth Data envelopment analysis Meta-frontier 

JEL Classification

O47 H50 E6 



The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Fernando A. D’Alessio Ipinza, Director General of CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business School, whose continuous support and encouragement made this research possible. Moreover, the authors are grateful to the Editor-in-Chief and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions on the previous drafts of this article. The authors also would like to thank Premio PODER Magazine for awarding the title of the best research award for the 2013 Think Tank of the Year in the category of Peru’s Most Innovative Study.


  1. Amin, A. (1999). An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assaf, A. (2009). Accounting for size in efficiency comparisons of airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(5), 256–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assaf, A., Pestana, C., & Josiassen, A. (2013). Hotel efficiency: A bootstrapped metafrontier approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3), 468–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begg, I. (1999). Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 35(5–6), 795–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benzaquen, J., Del Carpio, L., Zegarra, L., & Valdivia, C. (2010). Un índice regional de competitividad para un país. Revista Cepal, 102, 69–86.Google Scholar
  6. Bos, J., & Schmiedel, H. (2007). Is there a single frontier in a single european banking market? Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(7), 2081–2102. (Developments in European Banking).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouyssou, D. (1999). Using DEA as a tool for MCDM: Some remarks. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, 194–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CENTRUM. (2014). Índice de competitividad regional del Perú 2014. PUCP: CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business School.Google Scholar
  9. Charles, V. (2015a). Mining cluster development in Peru: From triple helix to the four clover. Strategia, 38, 38–46.Google Scholar
  10. Charles, V. (2015b). Mining cluster development in Peru: Learning from the international best practice. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  11. Charles, V. (2016). Mining and mitigating social conflicts in Peru. OR/MS Today, INFORMS, 43(2), 34–38.Google Scholar
  12. Charles, V., Fare, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2016). A translation invariant pure DEA model. European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 390–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charles, V., & Kumar, M. (2014). Satisficing data envelopment analysis: An application to SERVQUAL efficiency. Measurement, 51, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charles, V., & Zegarra, L. F. (2014). Measuring regional competitiveness through data envelopment analysis: A peruvian case. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 5371–5381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, Z., & Song, S. (2008). Efficiency and technology gap in China’s agriculture: A regional meta-frontier analysis. China Economic Review, 19(2), 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to the ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82, 111–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiu, C.-R., Liou, J.-L., Wu, P.-I., & Fang, C.-L. (2012). Decomposition of the environmental inefficiency of the meta-frontier with undesirable output. Energy Economics, 34(5), 1392–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Despotis, D. K. (2005). Measuring human development via data envelopment analysis: The case of asia and the pacific. Omega, 33, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FocusEconomics. (2015). Peru economic outlook, Technical report. FocusEconomics.Google Scholar
  21. Huggins, R. (2003). Creating a UK competitiveness index: Regional and local benchmarking. Regional Studies, 37(1), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huggins, R., & Izushi, H. (2011). Competition, competitive advantage, and clusters: The ideas of Michael Porter. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IMD. (2014). IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2014. Lausanne: IMD.Google Scholar
  24. Kao, C., Wu, W.-Y., Hsieh, W.-J., Wang, T.-Y., Lin, C., & Chen, L.-H. (2008). Measuring the national competitiveness of southeast asian countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 187, 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karagiannis, G., & Lovell, C. (2016). Productivity measurement in radial DEA models with a single constant input. European Journal of Operational Research, 251, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lauer, J. A., Lovell, K., Murray, C., & Evans, D. (2004). World health system performance revisited: The impact of varying the relative importance of health system goals. BMC Health Services Research, 4(1), 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, H., & Kim, C. (2014). Benchmarking of service quality with data envelopment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 3761–3768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lovell, C. K., & Pastor, J. T. (1995). Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Operations Research Letters, 18, 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lovell, C. K., & Pastor, J. T. (1997). Target setting: An application to a bank branch network. European Journal of Operational Research, 98(2), 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovell, C. K., & Pastor, J. T. (1999). Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs. European Journal of Operational Research, 118(1), 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovell, C. K., Pastor, J. T., & Turner, J. A. (1995). Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 87, 507–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malecki, E. J. (2007). Cities and regions competing in the global economy: Knowledge and local development policies. Environment and Planning, C: Government and Policy, 25(5), 638–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morais, P., & Camanho, A. S. (2011). Evaluation of performance of European cities with the aim to promote quality of life improvements. Omega, 39, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Önsel, S., Ülengin, F., Ulusoy, G., Aktaş, E., Kabak, O., & Topcu, Y. I. (2008). A new perspective on the competitiveness of nations. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42(4), 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: The Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, clusters, and company strategy. In G. L. Clark, M. P. Feldman, & M. S. Gertler (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic geography (pp. 253–274). Oxford: Oxford University Pres.Google Scholar
  38. Rao, D. P., O’Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2003). Metafrontier functions for the study of inter-regional productivity differences, CEPA Working Papers Series WP012003. School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  39. Seol, H., Choi, J., Park, G., & Park, Y. (2007). A framework for benchmarking service process using data envelopment analysis and decision tree. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(2), 432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seol, H., Lee, S., & Kim, C. (2011). Identifying new business areas using patent information: A DEA and text mining approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 2933–2941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thurow, L. (1992). Head to head: The coming economic battle among Japan, Europe, and America. New York, NY: Warner Books.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, Q., Zhao, Z., Zhou, P., & Zhou, D. (2013). Energy efficiency and production technology heterogeneity in china: A meta-frontier DEA approach. Economic Modelling, 35, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, Z.-X., & Wang, Y.-Y. (2014). Evaluation of the provincial competitiveness of the chinese high-tech industry using an improved topsis method. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 2824–2831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Werker, C., & Athreye, S. (2004). Marshall’s disciples: Knowledge and innovation driving regional economic development and growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Bank. (2014). Peru overview.Google Scholar
  46. Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zanakis, S. H., & Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2005). Competitiveness of nations: A knowledge discovery examination. European Journal of Operational Research, 166, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang, N., & Choi, Y. (2013a). Environmental energy efficiency of China’s regional economies: A non-oriented slacks-based measure analysis. The Social Science Journal, 50(2), 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, N., & Choi, Y. (2013b). Total-factor carbon emission performance of fossil fuel power plants in China: A metafrontier non-radial Malmquist index analysis. Energy Economics, 40, 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, N., Zhou, P., & Choi, Y. (2013). Energy efficiency, \(\text{ CO }_2\) emission performance and technology gaps in fossil fuel electricity generation in Korea: A meta-frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy, 56, 653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business SchoolPUCPLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations