Advertisement

Linked-Cone Profit Ratio Estimates of U.S. Total Factor Productivity Growth, Using DEA/AR Methods

  • Russell G. Thompson
  • E. A. Waltz
  • P. S. Dharmapala
  • R. M. Thrall
Part of the Advances in Computational Economics book series (AICE, volume 6)

Abstract

Solow’s total factor productivity (TFP) equation is revisit ed in a Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) context. Linked-cone (LC) profit ratios were used to measure the capital share and, in turn, TFP growth for the United States. Market imperfections are allowed for, and the role of slacks is evaluated. For the years 1980, 1985, and 1990, DEA methods were applied to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data for ten leading industrialized nations, namely, Canada, United States (U.S.), Japan, Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and United Kingdom. For the U.S., the LC estimates of TFP growth were noticeably greater than the TFP estimates using the standard growth accounting approach; and similarly, the LC estimates of TFP growth were greater than the TFP estimates using Malmquist indexes. Unfortunately, ignoring slacks in Malmquist indexes may well bias the efficiency measures and, in turn, the TFP growth estimates.

Keywords

Total Factor Productivity Total Factor Productivity Growth Malmquist Index Capital Share Total Factor Productivity Growth Rate 
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. 1.
    Banker, R.D., A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper, 1984, `Some models for estimation technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis’, Management Science 30 (9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banker, R.D., 1984, `Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis’, Management Science 30 (9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caves, D.W., L.R. Christensen, and W.E. Diewert, 1982, `The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity’, Econometrica 50 (6), 1393–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, 1978, `Measuring the efficiency of decision making units’, European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and R.M. Thrall, 1991, `A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiencies and inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis’, The Journal of Productivity Analysis 2, 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, A.M. Huang, and D.B. Sun, `Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks’, Journal of Econometrics 46(1/2), 73–91.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, W.W., S. Kumbhakar, R.M. Thrall, and Xuelin Yu, 1995, `DEA and stochastic frontier analyses of the 1978 Chinese economic reforms’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 29 (2), 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang, 1994, `Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries’, The American Economic Review 84 (1), 66–83.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farrell, M.J.,1957, `The measurement of productive efficiency’, Journal of Royal Statistical Society Al20,251–281.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golany, B. and S. Thore, 1996, `The competitiveness of nations’, IC2 Institute Working Paper 94–05–03, Austin, April 1994, in W.W. Cooper, D. Gibson, F. Phillips, and S. Thore (Eds), Impact: How IC2 Research Affects Public Policy and Business Markets, Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp. 191–210, to appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hickman, B.G., 1992, `International productivity and competitiveness: An overview’, in B.G. Hickman (Ed.), International Productivity and Competitiveness, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, L.R., 1992, `Restructuring of the world economy’, in B.G. Hickman (Ed.), International Productivity and Competitiveness, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koopmans, T.C., 1951, `Efficient allocation of resources’, Econometrica 19, 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krugman, R.R. and R.Z. Lawrence, 1994, `Trade, jobs, and wages’, Scientific American 270 (4), 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lovell, C.A.K., 1993, `Production frontiers and productive efficiency’, in H.O. Freid, C.A.K. Lovell, and S.S. Schmidt, (Eds), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lovell, C.A.K. and J.T. Pastor, “Macroeconomic Performance of Sixteen Ibero-American Countries Over the Period 1980–1991,” Unpublished Paper, Available from Authors Upon Request, Oct. 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Melyn, W. and W. Moesen, 1991, `Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: Unequal weighing when limited information is available’, Public Economics Discussion Paper No. 17, Center for Economic Studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seiford, L.M. and R.M. Thrall, 1990, `Recent developments in DEA: The mathematical programming approach’, Journal of Econometrics 46 (1/2), 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Solow, R.M., 1957, `Technical change and the aggregate production function’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 39 (3), 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson, R.G., P.S. Dharmapala, and R.M. Thrall, 1995, ‘DEA linked-cone efficiency and profitability potential with application to Illinois Coal Mines’, International Journal of Production Economics 39, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson, R.G., P.S. Dharmapala, E.J. Gatewood, S. Macy, and R.M. Thrall, 1996, `DEA/Assurance region SBDC efficiency and unique projections’, Operations Research, OR Practice 44(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson, R.G., L. Langemeier, C-T Lee, E. Lee, and R.M. Thrall, 1990, `The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with an application to Kansas farming’, Journal of Econometrics 46, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thompson, R.G., F.D. Singleton, Jr., B.A. Smith, and R.M. Thrall, 1986, `Comparative site evaluations for locating high energy lab in Texas’, TIMS Interfaces, 1380–1395.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thompson, R.G. and R.M. Thrall, 1994, `Polyhedral assurance regions with linked constraints’, in New Directions in Computational Economics, Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 121–133.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waltz, E.A. and R.G. Thompson, 1995, `International relative technical efficiency analysis of a U.S. commitment to lunar solar power’, in Alternative Power from Space Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell G. Thompson
    • 1
  • E. A. Waltz
    • 2
  • P. S. Dharmapala
    • 3
  • R. M. Thrall
    • 4
  1. 1.University of HoustonUSA
  2. 2.University of Texas School of Public HealthHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Sultan Qaboos UniversityOmanUSA
  4. 4.Rice UniversityComputations were made by the OPCON CorporationThe WoodlandsUSA

Personalised recommendations