Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research
Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research pp 51-74 | Cite as
Econometric Approaches to the Analysis of Productivity of R&D Systems
Production Functions and Production Frontiers
Andrea Bonaccorsi
Cinzia Daraio
In this chapter we review and discuss the potential and limitations of econometric methods for the evaluation of productivity of scientific and technological (S&T) systems. We examine and compare the main approaches that have been applied in the literature: the production function and the production frontier approach. Both approaches present advantages and disadvantages. In the first part of the chapter we carry out a selective review of the two fields. In the second part we focus on the last developments of the efficiency analysis literature, with particular attention to the nonparametric approach. An illustration of the potential of robust nonparametric techniques is offered using data from the Italian National Research Council (CNR). The chapter concludes by discussing the potential of these approaches for the analysis of S&T systems beyond the existing applications.
Data Envelopment Analysis Production Function Efficiency Score Efficient Frontier Production Frontier
Abbott M., Doucouliagos C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams J, Griliches Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales ďEconomie et de Statistique, 49/50, 127–162.Google Scholar
Aigner, D.J., Chu S.F. (1968). On estimating the industry production function. American Economic Review, 58, 826–839.Google Scholar
Aigner, D.J., Lovell, C.A.K., Schmidt P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R., Athanassopoulos, A., Dyson, R.G., Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgements in data envelopment analysis: evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arora A., David P.A., Gambardella A. (1998). Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: estimating the effects of research group productivity. Annales ďEconomie et de Statistique, 49/50, 163–198.Google Scholar
Baker B.D. (2001). Can flexible non-linear modeling tell us anything new about educational productivity? Economics of Education Review, 20, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper W.W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in DEA. Management Science, 32, 1613–1627.Google Scholar
Bartelsman, E.J., Doms M. (2000). Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 569–594.Google Scholar
Baumol W.J., Panzar J.C., Willig D.G. (1982). Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Bessent, A., Bessent, W.E. (1980). Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through DEA. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, 57–75.Google Scholar
Bessent A., Bessent W., Kennington J., Reagan B. (1982). An Application of mathematical programming to assess productivity in the Houston independent school district. Management Science, 28, 1355–1367.Google Scholar
Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2003a). A robust nonparametric approach to the analysis of scientific productivity. Research Evaluation, 12 (1), 47–69.Google Scholar
Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2003b). Age effects in scientific productivity. The case of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Scientometrics, 58 (1), 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2003c). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Mimeo LEM, Scuola Superiore Sanť Anna, Pisa.Google Scholar
Brinkman P.T. (1981). Factors affecting instructional costs at major research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 265–279.Google Scholar
Brinkman, P.T., Leslie L.L. (1986). Economies of scale in higher education: Sixty years of research. The Review of Higher Education, 10 (1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Cazals, C., Florens, J.-P., Simar, L. (2002). Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach. Journal of Econometrics, 106, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.L. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, E., Rhine, S.L.W., Santos, M.C. (1989). Institutions of higher education as multiproduct firms: economies of scale and scope. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71 (May), 284–290.Google Scholar
Cooper, S.T., Cohn, E. (1997). Estimation of a frontier production function for the South Carolina educational process. Economics of Education Review, 16 (3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K. (1999). Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-Solver software. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
Daneshvarty, N., Clauretie, T.M. (2001). Efficiency and costs in education: year-round versus traditional schedules. Economics of Education Review, 20, 279–287.Google Scholar
Daraio, C. (2003). Comparative efficiency and productivity analysis based on nonparametric and robust nonparametric methods. Methodology and Applications. Doctoral dissertation, Scuola Superiore Sanť Anna, Pisa (Italy).Google Scholar
Daraio, C., Simar, L. (2003). Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier estimation: a probabilistic approach, Discussion Paper no. 0313, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium, forthcoming on The Journal of Productivity Analysis.Google Scholar
De Groot, H., McMahon, W.W., Volkwein, J.F. (1991). The cost structure of American research universities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 424–451.Google Scholar
Deprins, D., Simar, L., Tulkens, H. (1984). Measuring labor efficiency in post offices, in M. Marchand, P. Pestieau, H. Tulkens (Eds.), The performance of public enterprises — concepts and measurement (pp. 243–267). Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dewey, J., Husted, T.A., Kenny, L.W. (2000). The ineffectiveness of school inputs: a product of misspecification? Economics of Education Review, 19, 27–45.Google Scholar
Dunbar, H., Lewis, D.R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14, 119–144.Google Scholar
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, NY.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K. (1985). The measurement of efficiency of production. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K. (1988). An indirect approach to the evaluation of producer performance. Journal of Public Economics, 37, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K. (1994). Production Frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Russell, R.R. (1998). Index numbers: essays in honour of Sten Malmquist. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Weber, W. (1989). Measuring school district performance. Public Finance Quarterly, 17, 409–428.Google Scholar
Farrell, M.J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, CXX, Part 3, 253–290.Google Scholar
Figlio, D.N. (1999). Functional form and the estimated effects of school resources. Economics of Education Review, 18, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florens, J.P., Simar, L. (2002). Parametric approximations of nonparametric frontier. Discussion Paper no. 0222, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium, forthcoming on the Journal of Econometrics.Google Scholar
Førsund, F.R., Kalhagen, K.O. (1999). Efficiency and productivity of Norwegian Colleges, in Georg Westermann (ed.), Data envelopment analysis in the service sector (pp. 269–308). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fox, M.F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: a critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. (2000). Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall International, UK.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z., Ringstad, V. (1971). Economies of scale and the form of the production function. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z., Mairesse, J. (1998). Production functions: The search for identification, in Z. Griliches (Ed.), Practising econometrics: essays in method and application, Edward Elgar (pp. 383–411). Also in S. Ström (Ed.), Econometrics and economic theory in the 20th century: the Ragnar Frish Centennial Symposium (pp. 169–203). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., Taylor, L., Weber, W. (1997). Budget-constrained frontier measures of fiscal equality and efficiency in schooling. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (1), 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., et al. (1999). Anticipating the consequences of school reform: a new use of DEA, Management Science, 45, 608–620.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., Taylor, L., Weber, W. (2001). On the determinants of school district efficiency: competition and monitoring, Journal of Urban Economics, 49, 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosskopf, S., Moutray, C. (2001). Evaluating performance in Chicago public high schools in the wake of decentralization. Economics of Education Review, 20, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyimah-Brempong, K., Gyapong, A. (1992). Elasticities of factor substitution in the production of education. Economics of Education Review, 11, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B., Mairesse, J. (1995). Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufacturing firms. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B., Mairesse, J. (1996). Estimating the productivity of research and development in french and United States manufacturing firms: an exploration of simultaneity issues with GMM Methods, in K. Wagner and B. Van Ark (Eds.), International productivity differences and their explanations (pp. 285–315). Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Hall, P., Simar, L. (2002). Estimating a changepoint, boundary or frontier in the presence of observation error. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halme, M., Joro, T., Korhonen, P., Salo, S., Wallenius, J. (2000). Value efficiency analysis for incorporating preference information in DEA. Management Science, 45, 103–115.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.P. (1982). Large sample properties of general method of moment estimators, Econometrica, 50, 1029–1054.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E. (1986). The economics of schooling. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141–1177.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S., Taylor, L. (1996). Aggregation and the estimated effects of school resources. Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, 611–627.Google Scholar
Hardle, W. (1992). Applied Nonparametric Regression. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heathfield, D.F., Wibe, S. (1987). An introduction to cost and production functions. MacMillan, London.Google Scholar
Holbrook, J.A.D. (1992). Basic indicators of scientific and technological performance. Science and Public Policy, 19 (5), 267–273.Google Scholar
Horowitz, J.L. (1998). Semiparametric methods in econometrics, Lecture Notes in Statistics, Vol 131, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Johnes, G., Johnes, J. (1993). Measuring the research performance of UK economics departments. An application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 45, 332–347.Google Scholar
Johnes, J., Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics. A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14 (3), 301–314.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. (1993). Effects of resource concentration on research performance. Higher Education, 28.Google Scholar
King, W.D. (1997). Input and output substitution in higher education. Economics Letters, 47, 107–111.Google Scholar
Kneip, A., Simar, L. (1996). A general framework for frontier estimation with panel data. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7, 187–212.Google Scholar
Korhonen, P., Tainio, R., Wallenius J. (2001). Value efficiency analysis of academic research. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumbhakar, S.C., Lovell, C.A.K. (2000). Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Cambridge University Press, UK.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., Morgan, M., Williams, R. (1993). Amalgamations of universities: are there economies of size and scope? Applied Economics, 25, 1081–1092.Google Scholar
Mairesse, J., Sassenou, M.(1991). R&D and productivity: a survey of econometric studies at the firm level. Science—Technology Industry Review, 8, 9–43. Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
Nadiri, M.I. (1970). Some approaches to the theory and measurement of Total Factor Productivity: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 8 (4), 1137–1177.Google Scholar
Narin, F., Breitzman, A., (1995). Inventive productivity. Research Policy, 24 (4), 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R., Hevert, K.T. (1992). Effect of class size on economies of scale and marginal costs in higher education. Applied Economics, 24, 473–482.Google Scholar
Pagan, A., Ullah, A. (1999). Nonparametric Econometrics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, B.U., Simar, L. (1994). Efficient semiparametric estimation in a stochastic frontier model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89 (427), 929–935.Google Scholar
Park, B.U. Sickles, R.C., Simar, L. (1998). Stochastic panel frontiers: A semiparametric approach. Journal of Econometrics, 84, 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, B., Sickles, R., Simar, L. (2003). Semiparametric efficient estimation of AR(1) panel data models, Discussion paper 0020, Institut de Statistique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, to appear in Journal of Econometrics.Google Scholar
Pedraja-Chaparro, R., Salinas-Jimenes, J., Smith, J., Smith, P. (1997). On the role of weight restrictions in DEA. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8, 215–230.Google Scholar
Pritchett, L., Filmer, D. (1999). What education production functions really show: a positive theory of education expenditures, Economics of Education Review, 18, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28.Google Scholar
Rizzi, D. (1999). Ľefficienza dei dipartimenti delľUniversità Ca' Foscari di Venezia via DEA e DFA. Nota di Lavoro 99.09, Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia.Google Scholar
Rousseau, S., Rousseau, R. (1997). Data envelopment analysis as a tool for constructing scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 40, 45–56.Google Scholar
Rousseau, S., Rousseau, R. (1998). The scientific wealth of European nations: taking effectiveness into account. Scientometrics, 42, 75–87.Google Scholar
Sarrico, C.S., Hogan, S.M., Dyson, R.G., Athanassopoulos, A.D. (1997). Data envelopment analysis and university selection. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48, 1163–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, B.W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Simar, L. (2003). How to improve the performance of DEA/FDH estimators in the presence of noise? Discussion Paper to appear, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (1999). Estimating and bootstrapping Malmquist indices. European Journal of Operational Research, 115, 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (2000). Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: The State of the Art. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 49–78.Google Scholar
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (2001). Testing restrictions in nonparametric efficiency models. Communications in Statistics, 30 (1), 159–184.Google Scholar
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W. (2002). Nonparametric tests of returns to scale. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simar, L., Wilson, P. (2003a). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semiparametric models of production processes. Discussion Paper no. 0307, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
Simar, L., Wilson, P. (2003b). Efficiency analysis: the statistical approach, Lectures Notes. Institute of Statistics, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
Simar, L., Zelenyuk, V. (2003). Statistical inference for aggregates of Farrell-type efficiencies. Discussion Paper no. 0324. Institut de Statistique, UCL, Belgium.Google Scholar
Stephan, P.E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1199–1235.Google Scholar
Stephan, P.E., Levin, G. (1996). The critical importance of careers in collaborative scientific research, Revue ďéconomie Industrielle, 79 (1), 45–61.Google Scholar
Thanassoulis, E., Dunstan, P. (1994). Guiding schools to improved performance using data envelopment analysis: an illustration with data from a local education authority. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45 (11), 1247–1262.Google Scholar
Thursby, J. (2000). What do we say about ourselves and what does it mean? Yet another look at economics department research. Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (2), 383–404.Google Scholar
Thursby, J., Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verry D.W., Layard, P.R. (1975). Cost functions for university teaching and research, Economic Journal, 85, 55–74.Google Scholar
Verry, D.W., Davis, B. (1976). University costs and outputs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Bartels, R. (1998). The effect of sample size on mean efficiency in DEA with application to electricity distribution in Australia, Sweden and New Zealand. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 9, 187–204.Google Scholar
Zhu, J. (1996). Data envelopment analysis with preference structure. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 136–150.Google Scholar
© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004
1.School of EngineeringUniversity of PisaItaly
2.Institute for Informatics and Telematics - CNR and Sanť Anna School of Advanced StudiesPisaItaly
Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2004) Econometric Approaches to the Analysis of Productivity of R&D Systems. In: Moed H.F., Glänzel W., Schmoch U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Springer, Dordrecht
DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_3
eBook Packages Humanities, Social Sciences and Law