4.1 Article

Stochastic FDH/DEA estimators for frontier analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 1-20

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11123-010-0170-6

关键词

Stochastic frontier; Nonparametric frontier; Local maximum likelihood; Stochastic DEA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper we extend the work of Simar (J Product Ananl 28:183-201, 2007) introducing noise in nonparametric frontier models. We develop an approach that synthesizes the best features of the two main methods in the estimation of production efficiency. Specifically, our approach first allows for statistical noise, similar to Stochastic frontier analysis (even in a more flexible way), and second, it allows modelling multiple-inputs-multiple-outputs technologies without imposing parametric assumptions on production relationship, similar to what is done in non-parametric methods, like Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Free Disposal Hull (FDH), etc.... The methodology is based on the theory of local maximum likelihood estimation and extends recent works of Kumbhakar et al. (J Econom 137(1):1-27, 2007) and Park et al. (J Econom 146:185-198, 2008). Our method is suitable for modelling and estimation of the marginal effects onto inefficiency level jointly with estimation of marginal effects of input. The approach is robust to heteroskedastic cases and to various (unknown) distributions of statistical noise and inefficiency, despite assuming simple anchorage models. The method also improves DEA/FDH estimators, by allowing them to be quite robust to statistical noise and especially to outliers, which were the main problems of the original DEA/FDH estimators. The procedure shows great performance for various simulated cases and is also illustrated for some real data sets. Even in the single-output case, our simulated examples show that our stochastic DEA/FDH improves the Kumbhakar et al. (J Econom 137(1):1-27, 2007) method, by making the resulting frontier smoother, monotonic and, if we wish, concave.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据