Advertisement

The Skewness Issue in Stochastic Frontiers Models: Fact or Fiction?

  • Pavlos Almanidis
  • Robin C. Sickles
Chapter

Abstract

Skewness plays an important role in the stochastic frontier model. Since the model was introduced by Aigner et al. (J. Econometric 6:21–37, 1977), Meeusen and van den Broeck (Int. Econ. Rev. 18:435–444, 1997), and Battese and Cora (Aust. J. Agr. Econ. 21:169–179, 1977), researchers have often found that the residuals estimated from these models displayed skewness in the wrong direction. In such cases applied researchers were faced with two main and often overlapping alternatives, either respecifying the model or obtaining a new sample, neither of which are particularly appealing due to inferential problems introduced by such data-mining approaches. Recently, Simar and Wilson (Econometric Rev. 29:62–98, 2010) developed a bootstrap procedure to address the skewness problem in finite samples. Their findings point to the latter alternative as potentially the more appropriate-increase the sample size. That is, the skewness problem is a finite sample one and it often arises in finite samples from a data generating process based on the correct skewness. Thus the researcher should first attempt to increase the sample size instead of changing the model specification if she finds the “wrong” skewness in her empirical analyses. In this chapter we consider an alternative explanation to the “wrong” skewness problem and offer a new solution in cases where this is not a mere finite sample fiction but also a fact. We utilize the Qian and Sickles (Stochastic Frontiers with Bounded Inefficiency, Rice University, Mimeo, 2008) model in which an upper bound to inefficiencies or a lower bound to efficiencies is specified based on a number of alternative one-sided bounded inefficiency distributions. We consider one of the set of specifications considered by Qian and Sickles (Stochastic Frontiers with Bounded Inefficiency, Rice University, Mimeo, 2008) wherein inefficiencies are assumed to be doubly-truncated normal. This allows the least square residuals to display skewness in both directions and nests the standard half-normal and truncated-normal inefficiency models. We show and formally prove that finding incorrect skewness does not necessarily indicate that the stochastic frontier model is misspecified in general. Misspecification instead may arise when the researcher considers the wrong distribution for the bounded inefficiency process. Of course if the canonical stochastic frontier model is the proper specification the residuals still may have the incorrect skew in finite samples but this problem goes away as sample size increases. This point was originally made in Waldman (Estimation in Economic Frontier Functions, Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1977) and Olson et al. (J. Econometric. 13:67–82, 1980). We also conduct a limited set of Monte Carlo experiments that confirm our general findings. We show that “wrong” skewness can be a large sample issue. There is nothing inherently misspecified about the model were this to be found in large samples if one were to consider the bounded inefficiency approach. In this way the “wrong” skewness, while problematic in standard models, can become a property of samples drawn from distributions of bounded inefficiencies.

Keywords

Finite Sample Stochastic Frontier Technical Inefficiency Stochastic Frontier Model Negative Skewness 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants of the Workshop on Exploring Research Frontiers in Contemporary Statistics and Econometrics in Honor of Leopold Simar, Institute of Statistics of the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, May 14–15, 2009, the 2009 XI European Workshop on Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Pisa, Italy, and the 2009 Rice University Econometrics Workshop, as well as two anonymous referees and Co-Editor Paul Wilson for comments and criticisms that substantially strengthened this chapter. The usual caveat applies.

References

  1. Aigner, D.J., & Chu, S. (1968). On estimating the industry production function. American Economic Review, 58, 826–839.Google Scholar
  2. Aigner, D.J., Lovell, C.A.K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier models. Journal of Econometrics, 6, 21–37.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almanidis, P., Qian, J., & Sickles, R.C. (2010). Bounded Stochastic Frontiers with an Application to the US Banking Industry: 1984–2009. Working paper.Google Scholar
  4. Battese, G.E., & Cora, G.S. (1977). Estimation of a production frontier model: with application to the pastoral zone of eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bera, A.K., & Premaratne, G. (2001). Adjusting the tests for skewness and kurtosis for distributional misspecifications. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  6. Carree, M.A. (2002). Technological inefficiency and the skewness of the error component in stochastic frontier analysis. Economics Letter, 77, 101–107.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., & Rhodes, E.L. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coelli, T. (1995). Estimators and hypothesis tests for a stochastic frontier function: A Monte Carlo analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 6, 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coelli, T. (1996). A guide to FRONTIER version 4.1: A computer program for stochastic frontier production and cost function estimation. CEPA working paper #96/07, Center for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, University of New England, Arimidale, NSW 2351, Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Dasgupta, A., Steven, G., Selfb, & Das Gupta, S. (2007). Non-identifiable parametric probability models and reparametrization. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 137, 3380–3393.Google Scholar
  11. D’Agostino, R.B., & Pearson, E.S. (1973). Tests for departure from normality: Empirical results for the distribution of b 2 and \(\sqrt{{b}_{1}}\). Biometrica, 60, 613–622.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Deprins, D., Simar, L., & Tulkens, H. (1984). Measuring labor inefficiency in post offices. In Marchand, M., Pestieau, P., & Tulkens, H. (Eds.) The performance of public enterprises: concepts and measurements, pp. 243–267. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Deprins, D., & Simar, L. (1989b). Estimating technical inefficiencies with corrections for environmental conditionswith an application to railway companies. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 60, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene, W.H. (1980a). Maximum likelihood estimation of econometric frontier functions. Journal of Econometrics, 13, 27–56.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene, W.H. (1980b). On the estimation of a flexible frontier production model. Journal of Econometrics, 13, 101–115.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene, W.H. (1990). A gamma distributed stochastic frontier model. Journal of Econometrics, 46, 141–164.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, W.H. (1997). Frontier production functions. In Microeconomics, H., Pesaran, & Schmidt, P. (Eds.) Handbook of Applied Econometrics, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Greene, W.H. (2007a). LIMDEP Version 9.0 User’s Manual. New York: Econometric Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Greene, W.H. (2007b). The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In Fried, H.O., Lovell, C.A.K., & Schmidt, S.S. (Eds.) The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jondrow, J., Lovell, C.A.K., Materov, I.S., & Schmidt, P. (1982). On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. Journal of Econometrics, 19, 233–238.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, N.L., Kotz, S., & Kemp, A.W. (1992). Univariate discrete distributions, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, N.L., Kotz, S., & Balakrishnan, N. (1994). Continuous univariate distributions, vol. 1, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, Y., & Schmidt, P. (2000). A review and empirical comparison of Bayesian and classical approaches to inference on efficiency levels in stochastic frontier models with panel data. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 14, 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koop, G. (1994). Recent progress in applied Bayesian Econometrics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 8, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koop, G., Osiewalski, J., & Steel, M.F.J. (1995). Posterior analysis of stochastic frontier models using Gibbs sampling. Computational Statistics, 10, 353–373.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Koop, G., Osiewalski, J., & Steel, M.F.J. (1997). Bayesian efficiency analysis through individual effects: Hospital cost frontiers. Journal of Econometrics, 76, 77–105.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leamer, E.E. (1978). Specification Searches: Ad hoc inference with nonexperimental data. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, L. (1993). Asymptotic distribution of the MLE for a stochastic frontier function with a singular information matrix. Econometric Theory, 9, 413–430.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meeusen, W., & van den Broeck, J. (1977). Efficiency estimation from Cobb-Douglas production functions with composed error. International Economic Review, 18, 435–444.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Migon, H.S., & Medici, E. (2001). A Bayesian Approach to Stochastic Production Frontier, Technical Report n. 105, DME-IM/UFRJ.Google Scholar
  31. Olson, J.A., Schmidt, P., & Waldman, D.M. (1980). A Monte Carlo study of estimators of the stochastic frontier production function. Journal of Econometrics, 13, 67–82.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Qian, J., & Sickles, R.C. (2008). Stochastic frontiers with bounded inefficiency. Mimeo: Rice University.Google Scholar
  33. Ritter, C., & Simar, L. (1997). Pitfalls of normal-gamma stochastic frontier models. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothenberg, T.J. (1971). Identification in parametric models. Econometrica, 39(3), 577–591.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sena, V. (1999). Stochastic frontier estimation: A review of the software options. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 14, 579–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sickles, R.C. (2005). Panel estimators and the identification of firm-specific efficiency levels in parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric settings. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 305–334.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simar, L., & Wilson, P.W. (2010). Estimation and inference in cross-sectional, stochastic frontier models. Econometric Reviews, 29, 62–98.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt, P., & Lin, T. (1984). Simple tests of alternative specifications in stochastic frontier models. Journal of Econometrics, 24, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shapiro, A. (1986). Asymptotic theory of overparameterized structural models. Journal of American Statistical Association, 81, 142–149.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevenson, R.E. (1980). Likelihood functions for generalized stochastic frontier estimation. Journal of Econometrics, 13, 57–66.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van den Broeck, J., Koop, G., & Osiewalski, J. (1994). Stochastic frontier models: a Bayesian perspective. Journal of Econometrics, 61, 273–303.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waldman, D. (1977). Estimation in economic frontier functions. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  43. Waldman, D. (1982). A stationary point for the stochastic frontier likelihood. Journal of Econometrics, 18, 275–279.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, W.S., & Schmidt, P. (2008). On the distribution of estimated technical efficiency in stochastic frontier models. Journal of Econometrics, 148, 36–45.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics - MS 22Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations