Dealing with the Endogeneity Problem in Data Envelopment Analysis

Cordero, José Manuel and Santín, Daniel and Sicilia, Gabriela (2013): Dealing with the Endogeneity Problem in Data Envelopment Analysis.

Abstract

Endogeneity, and the distortions on the estimation of economic models that it causes, is a familiar problem in the econometrics literature. Although non-parametric methods like data envelopment analysis (DEA) are among the most used techniques for measuring technical efficiency, the effects of endogeneity on such efficiency estimates have received little attention. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we further illustrate the endogeneity problem and its causes in production processes like the correlation between one input and the efficiency level. Second, we use synthetic data generated in a Monte Carlo experiment to analyze how different levels of positive and negative endogeneity can impair DEA estimations. We conclude that although DEA is robust to negative endogeneity, a high positive endogeneity level, i.e., a high positive correlation between one input and the true efficiency level, significantly and severely biases DEA performance.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Technical efficiency, DEA, Endogeneity, Monte Carlo.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments

References

Banker, R. D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984). “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis”. Management Science. 30, 1078–1092.

Bifulco, R. and Bretschneider, S. (2001). “Estimating school efficiency. A comparison of methods using simulated data”. Economics of Education Review, 20, 417-429.

Bifulco, R. and Bretschneider, S. (2003). “Response to comment on estimating school efficiency”. Economics of Education Review, 22, 635-638.

Bowlin, W. (1986). “Evaluating Performance in Governmental Organizations”. The Government Accountant´s Journal, 35, 50-57.

Bravo-Ureta, B. E., Greene, W., and Solís, D. (2012). “Technical efficiency analysis correcting for biases from observed and unobserved variables: an application to a natural resource management project”. Empirical Economics, 43(1), 55-72.

Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units”. European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6), 429-444.

Christensen, L.R., Jorgenson, D.W. and Lau, L.J. (1971). “Conjugate Duality and the Transcendental Logarithmic Production Function”. Econometrica, 39, 255-256.

Crespo-Cebada, E., Pedraja-Chaparro and Santín, D. (2013). “Does school ownership matter? An unbiased efficiency comparison for regions of Spain”. Journal of Productivity Analysis. DOI 10.1007/s11123-013-0338-y

Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O'Donnell, C. J., and Battese, G. E. (2005). “An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis”. Springer.

Essid, H., Ouellette, P. and Vigeant, S. (2013). “Small is not that beautiful after all: Measuring the scale efficiency of Tunisian High Schools using a DEA-bootstrap method”. Applied Economics, 45 (9), 1109-1120.

Färe, R., and Primont, D. (1995). “Multi-output production and duality: theory and applications”. Kluwer Academic Pub.

Galagedera, D. and Silvapulle, P. (2003). “Experimental evidence on robustness of data envelopment analysis”. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 654-660.

Greene W (2010). “A stochastic frontier model with correction for sample selection”. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 34 (1), 15-24.

Levacic, R. and Vignoles, A. (2002). “Researching the Links between School Resources and Student Outcomes in the UK: A Review of Issues and Evidence”. Education Economics, 10 (3), 313-331.

Mayen C.D., Balagtas J.V., Alexander C.E. (2010). “Technology adoption technical efficiency: organic and conventional dairy farms in United States”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92 (1), 181-195.

Mayston, D.J. (2003): Measuring and managing educational performance, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 679-691.

Nataraja, N.R. and Johnson, A.J. (2011): Guidelines for using variable selection techniques in data envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, 215, 662-669.

Orme, C. and Smith, P. (1996). “The Potential for Endogeneity Bias in Data Envelopment Analysis”. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 73-83.

Parry, Taryn R. (1996). “Will Pursuit of Higher Quality Sacrifice Equal Opportunity in Higher Education? An Analysis of the Education Voucher System in Santiago”. Social Science Quarterly, 77(4), 821-841.

Pedraja-Chaparro, F., Salinas-Jimenez, J. and Smith, P. (1999). “On the Quality of the Data Envelopment Analysis Model”. Journal of Operational Research Society, 50, 636-644.

Perelman, S. and Santín, D. (2011). “Measuring educational efficiency at student level with parametric stochastic distance functions: an application to Spanish PISA results”. Education Economics, 19 (1), 29-49.

Ruggiero, J. (2003). “Comment on estimating school efficiency”. Economics of Education Review, 22, 631-634.

Ruggiero, J. (2004). “Performance Evaluation when Non-Discretionary Factors Correlate with Technical Efficiency”. European Journal of Operational Research, 159, p.250-257.

Ruggiero, J. (2005). “Impact assessment of input omission on DEA”. International Journal of Technology and Decision Making, 4(3), 359-368.

Schlotter, M., Schwerdt, G. and Woessmann, L. (2011). “Econometric methods for causal evaluation of education policies and practices: a non-technical guide”. Education Economics, 19 (2), 109-137.

Simar, L. and Wilson, P.W. (2001). “Testing restrictions in nonparametric efficiency models”. Communications in Statistics, Simulation and Computation, 30, 159–184.

Smith, P. (1997). “Model misspecification in data envelopment analysis”. Annals of Operations Research, 73 (0), 233–252.

Solís, D., Bravo-Ureta, B. and Quiroga, R. E. (2007). “Soil conservation and technical efficiency among hillside farmers in Central America: a switching regression model”. Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 51 (4), 491-510.