σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices

Greco, Salvatore and Ishizaka, Alessio and Tasiou, Menelaos and Torrisi, Gianpiero (2018): σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices.

Abstract

We propose a new methodology to employ composite indicators for performance analysis of units of interest using and extending the family of Stochastic Multiattribute Acceptability Analysis. We start evaluating each unit by means of weighted sums of their elementary indicators in the whole set of admissible weights. For each unit, we compute the mean, �, and the standard deviation, �, of its evaluations. Clearly, the former has to be maximized, while the latter has to be minimized as it denotes instability in the evaluations with respect to the variability of weights. We consider a unit to be Pareto-Koopmans efficient with respect to � and � if there is no convex combination of � and � of the rest of the units with a value of � that is not smaller, and a value of � that is not greater, with at least one strict inequality. The set of all Pareto-Koopmans efficient units constitutes the first Pareto-Koopmans frontier. In the spirit of context-dependent Data Envelopment Analysis, we assign each unit to one of the sequences of Pareto-Koopmans frontiers. We measure the local efficiency of each unit with respect to each frontier, but also its global efficiency taking into account all feasible frontiers in the �

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Data Envelopment Analysis � Composite Indicators � Sigma-Mu efficiency � Stochastic Multiattribute Acceptability Analysis � neo-Benthamite approach.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics > C43 - Index Numbers and Aggregation; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics > C44 - Operations Research ; Statistical Decision Theory; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I31 - General Welfare, Well-Being

References

Abberger, K., Graff, M., Siliverstovs, B., and Sturm, J.-E. (2017). Using rule-based updating procedures to improve the performance of composite indicators. Economic Modelling, 68:127–144.

Aertens, W., Kint, V., Van Orshoven, J., and Muys, B. (2011). Evaluation of modelling techniques for forest site productivity prediction in contrasting ecoregions using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(7):929– 937.

Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Andersen, P. and Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 39(10):1261–1264.

Angilella, S., Catalfo, P., Corrente, S., Giarlotta, A., Greco, S., and Rizzo, M. (2018). Robust sustainable development assessment with composite indices aggregating interacting dimensions: The hierarchical-SMAA-Choquet integral approach. Knowledge-Based Systems, 158:136 – 153.

Angilella, S., Corrente, S., and Greco, S. (2015). Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis for the Choquet integral preference model and the scale construction problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(1):172–182.

Aragon, Y., Daouia, A., and Thomas-Agnan, C. (2003). A Conditional Quantilebased Efficiency Measure. Technical report, Discussion paper, GREMAQ et LSP, Université de Toulouse.

Atkinson, A. (2015). Inequality. Harvard University Press.

Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of economic theory, 2(3):244–263.

Aumann, R. J. (1962). Utility theory without the completeness axiom. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 445–462.

Babbie, E. R. (1995). The practice of social research. Wadsworth Publishing Company.