Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Analysis of the technological features of regional public transport companies: the Tunisian case

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to assess the cost-structure of the public transport industry in Tunisia. Thus, we use a translog variable cost function to identify the firms’ technological features. In this analysis, we work on a sample of 12 Tunisian regional transport companies (RTC) over the 2000/2010 period. The main results show the critical productive situation of the urban public transport system in Tunisia. This can be exemplified by the presence of a short and long term diseconomy of scale, given that the overall factor productivity is low and almost zero.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Equalization payments: they are cash payments made with the objective of reducing both wealth disparities and inequality, but at the expense of transparency in real costs, which can bias the decisions. Equalization is a rule of public service management. In fact, it is a system of resource redistribution among several administrative units. For example, the State sets up an equalization program in the operating subsidies awarded to counties so that the smallest of them can benefit from an acceptable budget.

  2. ES = 1: elasticity is equal to 1, therefore, the economies of scale are constant.

    ES < 1: elasticity is greater than 1, there are diseconomies. 

    ES > 1: elasticity is less than 1, there are economies of scale.

  3. The capital is owned by the organizing authority and represents the number of buses at the park, on 31/12 every year. Each company thus minimizes the costs of a subset of production factors, conditionally at the level of the capital provided by the authority. The capital may then be considered as a quasi-fixed production factor and the cost function is therefore no longer considered as a total cost function but rather a variable cost function. Such an approach makes us consider that the urban transport industry in all the periods is unbalanced compared to the available capacity provided by the organizing authority (Gagnepain 1998).

  4. For details on the duality conditions between the production sets and the cost functions, see Shephard (1953, 1970) and Uzawa (1962).

  5. According to Fraquelli et al. 2001, the parameter estimates are invariant to the choice of which equation is deleted as long as the Iterated SUR (or Maximum Likelihood) estimation method is employed on the M − 1 factor-share equations.

  6. Beja, Bizerte, Gabes, Gafsa, Jendouba, Kairouan, Kasserine, Kef, Mednine, Nabeul, Sfax and Sousse.

  7. Throughout this article the abbreviation Y SK is used, which denotes number of seats per kilometre.

  8. See Appendix.

  9. The model is estimated by the STATA 11.2 econometric software, with the command "SUREG".

  10. Breusch-Pagan test of independence: Chi2(3) = 126.672(P value = 0.000, i.e. <1 %).

  11. Since the variables costs and all the continuous explanatory variables are in logarithms, the estimated first order coefficients can be interpreted as cost elasticities.

  12. See (Uzawa 1962; Berndt and Wood 1975).

  13. See Blackorby and Russell (1989).

  14. A Cobb-Douglas would not be appropriate because the elasticity of substitution is imposed to be equal to unity for all factors of production.

  15. We are facing a natural monopoly, in which the price is higher than marginal cost (P > mc), which causes a loss of well-being (a Malthusian behavior). For this, the Ministry of Transportation (The organizing authority of the natural monopoly) prohibits investors to enter the public transport market by building strategic barriers in order to make the most loyal customers.

  16. Bus rapid transit: the system of rapid and inexpensive buses compared to the subway is very successful in both the developing and in the industrialized countries. Operating on dedicated traffic lanes, the BRT system greatly increases the average speed of the public transport network. Moreover, it fits into a broader mobility management and seeks an interaction with the urban planning. For detail see, e.g., Levinson et al. (2003); Hensher and Golob (2008); Widanapathiranage et al. (2015).

  17. A Cobb-Douglas function may not be appropriate because the substitution elasticity must be equal to the unity for all the production factors.

Abbreviations

P :

Price of inputs

VC :

The variable cost

Y :

Production vector

x :

Vector of the used inputs

β :

Coefficient

K :

Quasi-fixed capital

L :

Labor

E :

Energy

MS :

Materials and services

Z :

The length of network

Trend :

Technical progress (time indicator)

S i :

Share factor of input i

RMSE :

The root-mean-square error i.e. the square root of the variance, known as the standard deviation

R-sq :

R-squared

Chi 2 :

Chi-squared test

P value :

P value is automatically determined by STATA. The latter takes into account the number of degrees of freedom and tells us at what level our coefficient is significant

SE :

Standard error

ES SR--ES LR :

Short and long-run economies of scale

ED SR -ED LR :

Short and long-run economies of density

σ A ii :

Own-price elasticity of Allen

σ A ij :

Cross-price elasticity of Allen

M :

Morishima’s elasticity of substitution

PGY :

Overall productivity production (Y = YSK)

PGX :

Overall productivity of factors (X)

References

  • Abbes S, Bulteau J (2001) Analyse des caractéristiques des réseaux de transport collectif urbain en France. University of Calgary

  • Barros CP (2006) A benchmark analysis of Italian Seaport using data envelopment analysis. Marit Econ Log 8:347–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berndt ER, Wood DO (1975) Technology, prices, and the derived demand for energy. Rev Econ Stat 57:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya A, Kumbhakar SC, Bhattacharyya A (1995) Ownership structure and cost efficiency: a study of publicly owned passenger-bus transportation companies in India. J Prod Anal 6:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby C, Russell RR (1989) Will the real elasticity of substitution please stand up? (A comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima elasticities). Am Econ Rev 79:882–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Boitani A, Nicolini M, Scarpa C (2013) Do competition and ownership matter? Evidence from local public transport in Europe. Appl Econ 45(11):1419–1434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button K, O’donnell KH (1985) An examination of the cost structures associated with providing Urban bus services. Scott J Polit Econ 32:67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzzo Margari B, Erbetta F, Petraglia C, Piacenza M (2007) Regulatory and environmental effects on public transit efficiency: a mixed DEA-SFA approach. J Regul Econ 32(2):131–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cambini C, Piacenza M, Vannoni D (2007) Restructuring public transit systems: evidence on cost properties from medium and large-sized companies. Rev Ind Organ 31(3):183–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caves DW, Christensen LR, Tretheway MW (1984) Economies of density versus economies of scale: why trunk and local service airline costs differ. Rand J Econ 15:471–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen LR, Jorgenson DW, Lau LJ (1973) Transcendental logarithmic production frontiers. Rev Econ Stat 55(1):28–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalen DM, Gomez-Lobo A (2003) Yardsticks on the road: regulatory contracts and cost efficiency in the Norwegian bus industry. Transportation 30:371–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Borger L (1984) Cost and productivity in regional bus transportation: the Belgian case. J Ind Econ 33(1):37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filippini M, Maggi R, Prioni P (1992) Inefficiency in a regulated industry: the case of the Swiss regional bus companies. Ann Public Coop Econ 63:437–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraquelli G, Piacenza M, Abrate G (2001) Il trasporto pubblico locale in Italia: variabili esplicative dei divari di costo tra le imprese. Econ Polit Ind 111:51–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraquelli G, Piacenza M, Abrate G (2004) Regulating public transit networks: how do urban-intercity diversification and speed-up measures affect firms’ cost performance? Ann Public Coop Econ 75(2):193–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnepain P (1998) Structures productives de l’industrie du transport urbain et effets des schémas réglementaires. Econ Prév 135(4):95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer M (2006) Are the discount carriers actually more efficient than the legacy carriers?: a data envelopment analysis. Int J Transp Econ 33:37–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Golob TF (2008) Bus rapid transit systems—a comparative assessment. Transportation 35(4):501–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilmola OP (2007) European railway freight transportation and adaptation to demand decline: efficiency and partial productivity analysis from period of 1980–2003. Int J Prod Perform Manag 56(3):205–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jha R, Singh SK (2001) Small is efficient: a frontier approach to cost inefficiencies in Indian state road transport undertakings. Int J Transp Econ 28(1):95–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlaftis MG (2010) Ownership and competition in European transit: assessing efficiency. Transportmetrica 6(2):143–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlaftis MG, McCarthy P (2002) Cost structures of public transit systems: a panel data analysis. Transp Res Part E 38:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy P (1985) A guide to econometrics, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Levaggi R (1994) Parametric and non parametric approach to efficiency: the case of urban transport in Italy. Stud Econ 49(53):67–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson H, Zimmerman S, Clinger J, Rutherford S, Smith RL, Cracknell J, Soberman R (2003) Bus rapid transit, volume 1: case studies in bus rapid transit. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 90. Transportation Research Board, Washington

  • Lin LC, Tseng CC (2007) Operational performance evaluation of major container ports in the Asia–Pacific region. Marit Policy Manag 34(6):535–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano S (2009) Estimating productivity growth of Spanish ports using a non-radial, non oriented Malmquist index. Int J Shipp Transp Log 1(3):227–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín JC, Reggiani A (2007) Recent methodological developments to measure spatial interaction: synthetic accessibility indices applied to high-speed train investments. Transp Rev 27(5):551–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matas A, Raymond JL (1998) Technical characteristics and efficiency of urban bus companies: the case of Spain. Transportation 25:243–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikerbi SM, Dridi HS (2007) Efficience technique dans le transport urbain en Tunisie: Une approche paramétrique. Département de sciences économiques, Université de Sfax, MODEVI, FSEG-S, Tunisie

  • Obeng K (1985) Bus transit cost, productivity and factor substitution. J Transp Econ Policy 19(2):183–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottoz E, Fornengo G, Di Giacomo M (2009) The impact of ownership on the cost of bus service provision: an example from Italy. Appl Econ 41(3):337–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panzar JC, Willing RD (1977) Economies of Scale in Multioutput production. Quart J Econ 91:481–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piacenza M (2006) Regulatory contracts and cost efficiency: stochastic frontier evidence from the Italian local public transport. J Prod Anal 25(3):257–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheraga C (2004) Operational efficiency vs. financial mobility in the global airline industry: a data envelopment analysis and Tobit analysis. Transp ResA 38:383–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw-Er J, Chiang W, Chen YW (2005) Cost structure and technological change of local public transport: the Kaohsiung City Bus case. Appl Econ 37(12):1399–1410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shephard RW (1953) Cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Shephard RW (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiry B, Lawaree J (1987) Productivité, coût et caractéristiques technologiques des societés belges de transport urbain. Annales de l’économie publique, sociale et coopérative 4:369–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzawa H (1962) Production functions with constant elasticities of substitution. Rev Econ Stud 29:291–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viton P (1981) A Translog cost function for urban bus transit. J Ind Econ XXIX:287–304

  • Widanapathiranage R, Bunker JM, Bhaskar A (2015) Modelling the BRT station capacity and queuing for all stopping busway operation. Public Transp 7(1):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams M, Dalal A (1981) Estimation of the elasticities of substitution in urban bus transportation: a cost function approach. J Reg Sci 2:263–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57:348–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory URED, Faculty of Economics and Management of Sfax, University of Sfax, Street of airport, km 4.5, LP 1088, Sfax, 3018, Tunisia

    Ahmed Ayadi & Sami Hammami

Authors
  1. Ahmed Ayadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sami Hammami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Ayadi.

Appendix

Appendix

Choosing the most efficient output for our study is made by carrying out a correlation test between three types of output measures and the variable cost.

As shown in Table 14, most of the correlation coefficients are below 0.8, which corresponds to the limit set by Kennedy (1985) from which we usually start to have serious problems of multi-collinearity. Nevertheless, this does not prevent us from finding a strong correlation between outputs “Traveled kilometres”, “Passenger per kilometres” and the dependent variable “VC” therefore exceeding the threshold of 0.8. This raises a problem of multi-collinearity between the output and the dependent variable. For this reason, we opt for the supply measure represented by the variable SK to identify our output.

Table 14 Multi-collinearity test
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayadi, A., Hammami, S. Analysis of the technological features of regional public transport companies: the Tunisian case. Public Transp 7, 429–455 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0109-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0109-4

Keywords

JEL Classification