Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Luenberger-type indicators based on the weighted additive distance function

  • DEA in Data Analytics
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes two new Luenberger-type indicators, one for measuring productivity change of decision making units in the full input–output space, and the other for determining profit inefficiency change over time when information on market prices is also available. Both approaches are based upon the recently introduced weighted additive distance function, which permits the well-known weighted additive model in data envelopment analysis to be endowed with a distance function structure. We also show how the two indicators may be decomposed into their drivers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Luenberger (1992, 1995) introduced the concepts of benefit function and shortage function. In particular, the shortage function measures the distance in the direction of a vector g of a production plan from the boundary of the production possibility set, i.e., the shortage function measures the amount by which a specific plan is short of reaching the frontier of the technology. A few years later, Chambers et al. (1998) redefined the shortage function as a technical inefficiency measure, introducing the directional distance function.

  2. In addition, Briec and Kerstens (2009b) notice that the computation of mixed-period Directional Distance Functions can lead to projections with a negative output, which in general have little meaning in standard economic production applications. In order to avoid such a problem, one needs to add an additional constraint into program (3): the output translated by the Directional Distance Function into the direction of the directional vector must be positive (that is, \(y_{r0} +\beta g_r^O \ge 0)\). It is worth noticing that imposing this constraint may lead to additional infeasibilities.

  3. Kapelko et al. (2015) show another possibility of decomposition with more terms, inspired by the decomposition of the Malmquist index (see, e.g., Lovell 2003; Zofio 2007)

  4. Note that \(\Pi \left( {kc,kp} \right) =k\Pi \left( {c,p} \right) \) because the profit function is homogeneous of degree one in prices (see Färe and Primont 1995).

  5. Note that the denominator suggested by Chambers et al. (1998) is homogeneous of degree one in prices and, therefore, \(\frac{\Pi \left( {kc,kp} \right) -\left( {\sum \limits _{r=1}^s {kp_r y_{r0} } -\sum \limits _{i=1}^m {kc_i x_{i0} } } \right) }{\left( {\sum \limits _{i=1}^m {kc_i g_i^I } +\sum \limits _{r=1}^s {kp_r g_r^O } } \right) }=\frac{k\Pi \left( {c,p} \right) -k\left( {\sum \limits _{r=1}^s {p_r y_{r0} } -\sum \limits _{i=1}^m {c_i x_{i0} } } \right) }{k\left( {\sum \limits _{i=1}^m {c_i g_i^I } +\sum \limits _{r=1}^s {p_r g_r^O } } \right) }= \quad \frac{\Pi \left( {c,p} \right) -\Pi _0 }{\left( {\sum \limits _{i=1}^m {c_i g_i^I } +\sum \limits _{r=1}^s {p_r g_r^O } } \right) }\).

  6. For instance, Lozano et al. (2004) resorted to the MIP in order to estimate the performance of a set of municipalities in the context of glass recycling. It is an example of a cross-sectional study (one period). However, this same measure could not have been used if a panel data were available and determining productivity change was the focus. Now it is possible thanks to the new methodology introduced in this paper.

  7. $$\begin{aligned}&{\left( {c,p} \right) }\big /{\max \left\{ {\frac{c_1 }{w_1^- },\ldots ,\frac{c_m }{w_m^- },\frac{p_1 }{w_1^+ },\ldots ,\frac{p_s }{w_s^+ }} \right\} }\\&\quad =\left( {\frac{c_1 }{\max \left\{ {\frac{c_1 }{w_1^- },\ldots ,\frac{c_m }{w_m^- },\frac{p_1 }{w_1^+ },\ldots ,\frac{p_s }{w_s^+ }} \right\} },\ldots ,\frac{p_s }{\max \left\{ {\frac{c_1 }{w_1^- },\ldots ,\frac{c_m }{w_m^- },\frac{p_1 }{w_1^+ },\ldots ,\frac{p_s }{w_s^+ }} \right\} }} \right) . \end{aligned}$$

References

  • Afsharian, M., & Ahn, H. (2015). The overall Malmquist index: A new approach for measuring productivity changes over time. Annals of Operations Research, 226, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aparicio, J., Pastor, J. T., & Vidal, F. (2016). The weighted additive distance function. European Journal of Operational Research, 254, 338–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beale, E. M. L., & Tomlin, J. A. (1970). Special facilities in a general mathematical programming system for non-convex problems using ordered sets of variables. In Lawrence, J. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Operational Research (pp. 447–454). London: Tavistock Publications.

  • Briec, W., & Kerstens, K. (2009a). Infeasibility and Directional Distance Functions with application of determinateness of the Luenberger productivity indicator. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 141, 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briec, W., & Kerstens, K. (2009b). The Luenberger productivity indicator: An economic specification leading to infeasibilities. Economic Modelling, 26, 597–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caves, D., Christensen, L., & Diewert, W. (1982). The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity. Econometrica, 50(6), 1393–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1996). Productivity growth in APEC countries. Pacific Economic Review, 1, 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., & Pope, R. D. (1996). Aggregate productivity measures. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(5), 1360–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1998). Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 98, 351–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Park, K. S., & Pastor, J. T. (1999). RAM: A range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models, and relations to others models and measures in DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 11, 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Pastor, J. T., Borras, F., Aparicio, J., & Pastor, D. (2011). BAM: A bounded adjusted measure of efficiency for use with bounded additive models. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 35(2), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1978). Measuring the technical efficiency of production. Journal of Economic Theory, 19, 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lindgren, B., & Roos, P. (1992). Productivity changes in Swedish pharmacies 1980–1989: a non-parametric Malmquist approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3(1–2), 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., & Primont, D. (1995). Multi-output production and duality: Theory and applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, 120, 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, H., & Weber, W. L. (2017). Measuring bank performance with a dynamic network Luenberger indicator. Annals of Operations Research, 250(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapelko, M., Horta, I. M., Camanho, A. S., & Oude Lansink, A. (2015). Measurement of input-specific productivity growth with an application to the construction industry in Spain and Portugal. International Journal of Production Economics, 166, 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. C. (1951). An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In T. C. Koopmans (Ed.), Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, C. A. K., & Pastor, J. T. (1995). Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Operations Research Letters, 18, 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, C. A. K. (2003). The decomposition of Malmquist productivity indexes. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 20, 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, S., Villa, G., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2004). Centralised target setting for regional recycling operations using DEA. Omega, 32, 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luenberger, D. G. (1992). New optimality principles for economic efficiency and equilibrium. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 75(2), 221–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luenberger, D. G. (1995). Microeconomic Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAGRAMA (2015). Estadisticas. Producciones Agricolas. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacion y Medio Ambiente. http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/estadisticas/. Accessed April 2017. (in Spanish).

  • Maniadakis, N., & Thanassoulis, E. (2004). A cost Malmquist index. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerlove, M. (1965). Estimation and identification of Cobb–Douglas production functions. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, J. T., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (1999). An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure. European Journal of Operational Research, 115(3), 596–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, D. (2006). Efficiency and total quality management in health care organizations: A dynamic frontier approach. Annals of Operations Research, 145, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shephard, R. W. (1953). Cost and Production Functions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva Portela, M. C. A., & Thanassoulis, E. (2006). Malmquist indexes using a geometric distance function (GDF). Application to a sample of Portuguese bank branches. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2001). A Slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2004). Malmquist productivity index. Efficiency change over time. In W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, & J. Zhu (Eds.), Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, N., Liu, Y., Emrouznejad, A., & Huang, Q. (2016). An allocation Malmquist index with an application in the China securities industry. Operational Research: An International Journal (in press).

  • Zofio, J. L., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2001). Graph efficiency and productivity measures: An application to US agriculture. Applied Economics, 33, 1433–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zofio, J. L. (2007). Malmquist productivity index decompositions: A unifying framework. Applied Economics, 39, 2371–2387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous referees for providing constructive comments and help. Also, the authors would like to express their gratitude to the Spanish Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness for supporting this research through Grant MTM2013-43903-P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Operations Research, University Miguel Hernandez of Elche, 03202, Elche, Alicante, Spain

    Juan Aparicio, Lidia Ortiz & Jesus T. Pastor

  2. Department of Statistics, Mathematics and Computer Science, University Miguel Hernandez of Elche, 03202, Elche, Alicante, Spain

    Fernando Borras

  3. Environmental Economics Department, University Miguel Hernandez of Elche, 03212, Orihuela, Alicante, Spain

    Fernando Vidal

Authors
  1. Juan Aparicio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernando Borras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lidia Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jesus T. Pastor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fernando Vidal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Aparicio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aparicio, J., Borras, F., Ortiz, L. et al. Luenberger-type indicators based on the weighted additive distance function. Ann Oper Res 278, 195–213 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2620-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2620-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation