Advertisement

Econometric Approaches to the Analysis of Productivity of R&D Systems

Production Functions and Production Frontiers
  • Andrea Bonaccorsi
  • Cinzia Daraio

Abstract

In this chapter we review and discuss the potential and limitations of econometric methods for the evaluation of productivity of scientific and technological (S&T) systems. We examine and compare the main approaches that have been applied in the literature: the production function and the production frontier approach. Both approaches present advantages and disadvantages. In the first part of the chapter we carry out a selective review of the two fields. In the second part we focus on the last developments of the efficiency analysis literature, with particular attention to the nonparametric approach. An illustration of the potential of robust nonparametric techniques is offered using data from the Italian National Research Council (CNR). The chapter concludes by discussing the potential of these approaches for the analysis of S&T systems beyond the existing applications.

Keywords

Data Envelopment Analysis Production Function Efficiency Score Efficient Frontier Production Frontier 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott M., Doucouliagos C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams J, Griliches Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales ďEconomie et de Statistique, 49/50, 127–162.Google Scholar
  3. Aigner, D.J., Chu S.F. (1968). On estimating the industry production function. American Economic Review, 58, 826–839.Google Scholar
  4. Aigner, D.J., Lovell, C.A.K., Schmidt P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen, R., Athanassopoulos, A., Dyson, R.G., Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgements in data envelopment analysis: evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arora A., David P.A., Gambardella A. (1998). Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: estimating the effects of research group productivity. Annales ďEconomie et de Statistique, 49/50, 163–198.Google Scholar
  7. Baker B.D. (2001). Can flexible non-linear modeling tell us anything new about educational productivity? Economics of Education Review, 20, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper W.W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in DEA. Management Science, 32, 1613–1627.Google Scholar
  9. Bartelsman, E.J., Doms M. (2000). Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 569–594.Google Scholar
  10. Baumol W.J., Panzar J.C., Willig D.G. (1982). Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  11. Bessent, A., Bessent, W.E. (1980). Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through DEA. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, 57–75.Google Scholar
  12. Bessent A., Bessent W., Kennington J., Reagan B. (1982). An Application of mathematical programming to assess productivity in the Houston independent school district. Management Science, 28, 1355–1367.Google Scholar
  13. Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2003a). A robust nonparametric approach to the analysis of scientific productivity. Research Evaluation, 12 (1), 47–69.Google Scholar
  14. Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2003b). Age effects in scientific productivity. The case of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Scientometrics, 58 (1), 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2003c). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Mimeo LEM, Scuola Superiore Sanť Anna, Pisa.Google Scholar
  16. Brinkman P.T. (1981). Factors affecting instructional costs at major research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 265–279.Google Scholar
  17. Brinkman, P.T., Leslie L.L. (1986). Economies of scale in higher education: Sixty years of research. The Review of Higher Education, 10 (1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  18. Cazals, C., Florens, J.-P., Simar, L. (2002). Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach. Journal of Econometrics, 106, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.L. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cohn, E., Rhine, S.L.W., Santos, M.C. (1989). Institutions of higher education as multiproduct firms: economies of scale and scope. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71 (May), 284–290.Google Scholar
  21. Cooper, S.T., Cohn, E. (1997). Estimation of a frontier production function for the South Carolina educational process. Economics of Education Review, 16 (3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K. (1999). Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-Solver software. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  23. Daneshvarty, N., Clauretie, T.M. (2001). Efficiency and costs in education: year-round versus traditional schedules. Economics of Education Review, 20, 279–287.Google Scholar
  24. Daraio, C. (2003). Comparative efficiency and productivity analysis based on nonparametric and robust nonparametric methods. Methodology and Applications. Doctoral dissertation, Scuola Superiore Sanť Anna, Pisa (Italy).Google Scholar
  25. Daraio, C., Simar, L. (2003). Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier estimation: a probabilistic approach, Discussion Paper no. 0313, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium, forthcoming on The Journal of Productivity Analysis.Google Scholar
  26. De Groot, H., McMahon, W.W., Volkwein, J.F. (1991). The cost structure of American research universities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 424–451.Google Scholar
  27. Deprins, D., Simar, L., Tulkens, H. (1984). Measuring labor efficiency in post offices, in M. Marchand, P. Pestieau, H. Tulkens (Eds.), The performance of public enterprises — concepts and measurement (pp. 243–267). Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  28. Dewey, J., Husted, T.A., Kenny, L.W. (2000). The ineffectiveness of school inputs: a product of misspecification? Economics of Education Review, 19, 27–45.Google Scholar
  29. Dunbar, H., Lewis, D.R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14, 119–144.Google Scholar
  30. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, NY.Google Scholar
  31. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K. (1985). The measurement of efficiency of production. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K. (1988). An indirect approach to the evaluation of producer performance. Journal of Public Economics, 37, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K. (1994). Production Frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  34. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Russell, R.R. (1998). Index numbers: essays in honour of Sten Malmquist. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Weber, W. (1989). Measuring school district performance. Public Finance Quarterly, 17, 409–428.Google Scholar
  36. Farrell, M.J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, CXX, Part 3, 253–290.Google Scholar
  37. Figlio, D.N. (1999). Functional form and the estimated effects of school resources. Economics of Education Review, 18, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Florens, J.P., Simar, L. (2002). Parametric approximations of nonparametric frontier. Discussion Paper no. 0222, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium, forthcoming on the Journal of Econometrics.Google Scholar
  39. Førsund, F.R., Kalhagen, K.O. (1999). Efficiency and productivity of Norwegian Colleges, in Georg Westermann (ed.), Data envelopment analysis in the service sector (pp. 269–308). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Fox, M.F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: a critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13.Google Scholar
  41. Greene, W.H. (2000). Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall International, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Griliches, Z., Ringstad, V. (1971). Economies of scale and the form of the production function. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  43. Griliches, Z., Mairesse, J. (1998). Production functions: The search for identification, in Z. Griliches (Ed.), Practising econometrics: essays in method and application, Edward Elgar (pp. 383–411). Also in S. Ström (Ed.), Econometrics and economic theory in the 20th century: the Ragnar Frish Centennial Symposium (pp. 169–203). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., Taylor, L., Weber, W. (1997). Budget-constrained frontier measures of fiscal equality and efficiency in schooling. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (1), 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., et al. (1999). Anticipating the consequences of school reform: a new use of DEA, Management Science, 45, 608–620.Google Scholar
  46. Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., Taylor, L., Weber, W. (2001). On the determinants of school district efficiency: competition and monitoring, Journal of Urban Economics, 49, 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grosskopf, S., Moutray, C. (2001). Evaluating performance in Chicago public high schools in the wake of decentralization. Economics of Education Review, 20, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gyimah-Brempong, K., Gyapong, A. (1992). Elasticities of factor substitution in the production of education. Economics of Education Review, 11, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hall, B., Mairesse, J. (1995). Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufacturing firms. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hall, B., Mairesse, J. (1996). Estimating the productivity of research and development in french and United States manufacturing firms: an exploration of simultaneity issues with GMM Methods, in K. Wagner and B. Van Ark (Eds.), International productivity differences and their explanations (pp. 285–315). Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  51. Hall, P., Simar, L. (2002). Estimating a changepoint, boundary or frontier in the presence of observation error. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Halme, M., Joro, T., Korhonen, P., Salo, S., Wallenius, J. (2000). Value efficiency analysis for incorporating preference information in DEA. Management Science, 45, 103–115.Google Scholar
  53. Hansen, L.P. (1982). Large sample properties of general method of moment estimators, Econometrica, 50, 1029–1054.Google Scholar
  54. Hanushek, E. (1986). The economics of schooling. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141–1177.Google Scholar
  55. Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S., Taylor, L. (1996). Aggregation and the estimated effects of school resources. Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, 611–627.Google Scholar
  56. Hardle, W. (1992). Applied Nonparametric Regression. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Heathfield, D.F., Wibe, S. (1987). An introduction to cost and production functions. MacMillan, London.Google Scholar
  58. Holbrook, J.A.D. (1992). Basic indicators of scientific and technological performance. Science and Public Policy, 19 (5), 267–273.Google Scholar
  59. Horowitz, J.L. (1998). Semiparametric methods in econometrics, Lecture Notes in Statistics, Vol 131, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  60. Johnes, G., Johnes, J. (1993). Measuring the research performance of UK economics departments. An application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 45, 332–347.Google Scholar
  61. Johnes, J., Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics. A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14 (3), 301–314.Google Scholar
  62. Johnston, R. (1993). Effects of resource concentration on research performance. Higher Education, 28.Google Scholar
  63. King, W.D. (1997). Input and output substitution in higher education. Economics Letters, 47, 107–111.Google Scholar
  64. Kneip, A., Simar, L. (1996). A general framework for frontier estimation with panel data. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7, 187–212.Google Scholar
  65. Korhonen, P., Tainio, R., Wallenius J. (2001). Value efficiency analysis of academic research. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kumbhakar, S.C., Lovell, C.A.K. (2000). Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Cambridge University Press, UK.Google Scholar
  67. Lloyd, P., Morgan, M., Williams, R. (1993). Amalgamations of universities: are there economies of size and scope? Applied Economics, 25, 1081–1092.Google Scholar
  68. Mairesse, J., Sassenou, M.(1991). R&D and productivity: a survey of econometric studies at the firm level. Science—Technology Industry Review, 8, 9–43. Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
  69. Nadiri, M.I. (1970). Some approaches to the theory and measurement of Total Factor Productivity: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 8 (4), 1137–1177.Google Scholar
  70. Narin, F., Breitzman, A., (1995). Inventive productivity. Research Policy, 24 (4), 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nelson, R., Hevert, K.T. (1992). Effect of class size on economies of scale and marginal costs in higher education. Applied Economics, 24, 473–482.Google Scholar
  72. Pagan, A., Ullah, A. (1999). Nonparametric Econometrics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Park, B.U., Simar, L. (1994). Efficient semiparametric estimation in a stochastic frontier model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89 (427), 929–935.Google Scholar
  74. Park, B.U. Sickles, R.C., Simar, L. (1998). Stochastic panel frontiers: A semiparametric approach. Journal of Econometrics, 84, 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Park, B., Sickles, R., Simar, L. (2003). Semiparametric efficient estimation of AR(1) panel data models, Discussion paper 0020, Institut de Statistique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, to appear in Journal of Econometrics.Google Scholar
  76. Pedraja-Chaparro, R., Salinas-Jimenes, J., Smith, J., Smith, P. (1997). On the role of weight restrictions in DEA. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8, 215–230.Google Scholar
  77. Pritchett, L., Filmer, D. (1999). What education production functions really show: a positive theory of education expenditures, Economics of Education Review, 18, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28.Google Scholar
  79. Rizzi, D. (1999). Ľefficienza dei dipartimenti delľUniversità Ca’ Foscari di Venezia via DEA e DFA. Nota di Lavoro 99.09, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia.Google Scholar
  80. Rousseau, S., Rousseau, R. (1997). Data envelopment analysis as a tool for constructing scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 40, 45–56.Google Scholar
  81. Rousseau, S., Rousseau, R. (1998). The scientific wealth of European nations: taking effectiveness into account. Scientometrics, 42, 75–87.Google Scholar
  82. Sarrico, C.S., Hogan, S.M., Dyson, R.G., Athanassopoulos, A.D. (1997). Data envelopment analysis and university selection. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48, 1163–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Silverman, B.W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  84. Simar, L. (2003). How to improve the performance of DEA/FDH estimators in the presence of noise? Discussion Paper to appear, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
  85. Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (1999). Estimating and bootstrapping Malmquist indices. European Journal of Operational Research, 115, 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (2000). Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: The State of the Art. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 49–78.Google Scholar
  87. Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (2001). Testing restrictions in nonparametric efficiency models. Communications in Statistics, 30 (1), 159–184.Google Scholar
  88. Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (2002). Nonparametric tests of returns to scale. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Simar, L., Wilson, P. (2003a). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semiparametric models of production processes. Discussion Paper no. 0307, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
  90. Simar, L., Wilson, P. (2003b). Efficiency analysis: the statistical approach, Lectures Notes. Institute of Statistics, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
  91. Simar, L., Zelenyuk, V. (2003). Statistical inference for aggregates of Farrell-type efficiencies. Discussion Paper no. 0324. Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
  92. Stephan, P.E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  93. Stephan, P.E., Levin, G. (1996). The critical importance of careers in collaborative scientific research, Revue ďéconomie Industrielle, 79 (1), 45–61.Google Scholar
  94. Thanassoulis, E., Dunstan, P. (1994). Guiding schools to improved performance using data envelopment analysis: an illustration with data from a local education authority. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45 (11), 1247–1262.Google Scholar
  95. Thursby, J. (2000). What do we say about ourselves and what does it mean? Yet another look at economics department research. Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (2), 383–404.Google Scholar
  96. Thursby, J., Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Verry D.W., Layard, P.R. (1975). Cost functions for university teaching and research, Economic Journal, 85, 55–74.Google Scholar
  99. Verry, D.W., Davis, B. (1976). University costs and outputs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  100. Zhang, Y., Bartels, R. (1998). The effect of sample size on mean efficiency in DEA with application to electricity distribution in Australia, Sweden and New Zealand. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 9, 187–204.Google Scholar
  101. Zhu, J. (1996). Data envelopment analysis with preference structure. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 136–150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Bonaccorsi
    • 1
  • Cinzia Daraio
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of PisaItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Informatics and Telematics - CNR and Sanť Anna School of Advanced StudiesPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations