Regular Variable Returns to Scale Production Frontier and Efficiency Measurement

References

• Afriat SN (1972) Efficiency estimation of production functions. Internat. Econom. Rev. 13(3):568–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrell PJ, Bogetoft P, Brock M, Tind J (2005) Efficiency evaluation with convex pairs. Adv. Model. Optim. 7(2):211–237.Google Scholar
• Ali El-Hodiri M (1991) Extrema of Smooth Functions with Examples from Economic Theory (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• An Q, Zhang Q, Tao X (2023) Pay-for-performance incentive in benchmarking with quasi S-shaped technology. Omega 118:102854.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balk BM (2001) Scale efficiency and productivity change. J. Productivity Anal. 15(3):159–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker R (1984) Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 17(1):35–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Maindiratta A (1986) Piecewise loglinear estimation of efficient production surfaces. Management Sci. 32(1):126–135.Link, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Sci. 30(9):1078–1092.Link, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Thrall RM, Zhu J (2004) Returns to scale in different DEA models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 154(2):345–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bogetoft P (1996) DEA on relaxed convexity assumptions. Management Sci. 42(3):457–465.Link, Google Scholar
• Bogetoft P, Tama JM, Tind J (2000) Convex input and output projections of nonconvex production possibility sets. Management Sci. 46(6):858–869.Link, Google Scholar
• Boussemart J-P, Briec W, Peypoch N, Tavéra C (2009) α-Returns to scale and multi-output production technologies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197(1):332–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Briec W, Kerstens K, Vanden Eeckaut P (2004) Non-convex technologies and cost functions: Definitions, duality and nonparametric tests of convexity. J. Econom. 81(2):155–192.Google Scholar
• Briec W, Kerstens K, Leleu H, Vanden Eeckaut P (2000) Returns to scale on nonparametric deterministic technologies: Simplifying goodness-of-fit methods using operations on technologies. J. Productivity Anal. 14(3):267–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunn R, Burman E, Warne J, Bull J, Field J (2023) Tracking building operational energy and carbon emissions using S-curve trajectories—A prototype tool. Building Services Engrg. Res. Tech. 44(2):135–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cherchye L, Kuosmanen T, Post T (2000) Why convexity? An assessment of convexity axioms in DEA. Working Paper No. W-270, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
• Coppola G, Destefanis S (2015) Structural funds and regional convergence: Some sectoral estimates for Italy. Mussida C, Pastore F, eds. Geographical Labor Market Imbalances: Recent Explanations and Cures (Springer, Berlin), 307–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Freitas CO, Cardoso Teixeira E, Braga MJ, de Souza Schuntzemberger AM (2019) Technical efficiency and farm size: An analysis based on the Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock Census. Italian Rev. Agricultural Econom. 74(1):33–48.Google Scholar
• Dekker D, Post T (2001) A quasi-concave DEA model with an application for bank branch performance evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132(2):296–311.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deprins D, Simar L, Tulkens H (1984) Measuring labor-efficiency in post offices. Marchand M, Pestieau P, Tulkens H, eds. The Performance of Public Enterprises: Concepts and Measurement (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 243–267.Google Scholar
• Destefanis S (2002) The Verdoorn law: Some evidence from non-parametric frontier analysis. McCombie J, Pugno M, Soro B, eds. Productivity Growth and Economic Performance: Essays on Verdoorn’s Law (Palgrave Macmillan, London), 136–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Destefanis S, Sena V (2005) Public capital and total factor productivity: New evidence from the Italian regions, 1970–98. Regional Stud. 39(5):603–617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Destefanis S, Storti G (2002) Measuring cross-country technological catch-up through variable-parameter FDH. Statist. Methods Appl. 11(1):109–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diewert WE, Parkan C (1983) Linear programming tests of regularity conditions for production functions. Eichhorn W, Henn R, Neumann K, Shephard RW, eds. Quantitative Studies on Production and Prices (Physica-Verlag, Vienna), 131–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Färe R (1988) Fundamentals of Production Theory (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK (1994) Production Frontiers (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC, Kochenberger GA (1979) Two-piece Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sci. 10(4):503–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Førsund FR, Hjalmarsson L, Krivonozhko VE, Utkin OB (2007) Calculation of scale elasticities in DEA models: Direct and indirect approaches. J. Productivity Anal. 28(1/2):45–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frisch R (1965) Theory of Production (D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, Netherlands).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfand SM, Taylor MPH (2021) The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate. Food Policy 99:101977.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jha R, Chitkara P, Gupta S (2000) Productivity, technical and allocative efficiency and farm size in wheat farming in India: A DEA approach. Appl. Econom. Lett. 7(1):1–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerstens K, Vanden Eeckaut P (1999) Estimating returns to scale using non-parametric deterministic technologies: A new method based on goodness-of-fit. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 113(1):206–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kucharavy D, De Guio R (2011) Application of S-shaped curves. Procedia Engrg. 9:559–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumasaka Y (2011) The IT revolution and new production functions for the IT economy. Kumasaka Y, Adams FG, Shinozaki A, eds. The Effect and Implication of the IT Revolution on the Potential Growth of East Asian Countries. ERIA Research Project Report 2010, No. 11 (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, Jakarta, Indonesia), 19–100.Google Scholar
• Latruffe L, Balcombe K, Davidova S, Zawalinska K (2004) Determinants of technical efficiency of crop and livestock farms in Poland. Appl. Econom. 36(12):1255–1263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li SK (2019) A nonparametric test of quasiconcave production function with variable returns to scale. J. Math. Econom. 82:160–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li SK, Tsang CK, Lee SK (2020) Sustainable development of the China tourism sector: Implications from technical and scale efficiency measurements. Chinese Econom. 54(4):262–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li SK, Tsang CK, Lee SK (2024) Partially convex production technology and efficiency measurement. J. Productivity Anal., ePub ahead of print January 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-023-00716-w.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipsey RG (2018) A Reconsideration of the Theory of Non-Linear Scale Effects: The Sources of Variable Returns to, and Economies of, Scale (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lu W, Peng Y, Chen X, Skitmore M, Zhang X (2016) The S-curve for forecasting waste generation in construction projects. Waste Management 56:23–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Muu LD, Oettli W (1991) Method for minimizing a convex-concave function over a convex set. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 70(2):377–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Netland T, Ferdows K (2014) What to expect from a corporate lean program. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 55(3):83–89.Google Scholar
• Netland T, Ferdows K (2016) The S-curve effect of lean implementation. Production Oper. Management 25(6):1106–1120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nowak A, Kijek T, Domańska K (2015) Technical efficiency and its determinants in the European Union agriculture. Agricultural Econom. Czech 61(6):275–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olesen OB, Petersen NC (2013) Imposing the Regular Ultra Passum Law in DEA models. Omega 41:16–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olesen OB, Ruggiero J (2014) Maintaining the Regular Ultra Passum Law in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 235(3):798–809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olesen OB, Ruggiero J, Mamula AT (2016) Estimating a nonparametric homothetic S-shaped production relation for the US West Coast groundfish production 2004–2007. Data Envelopment Anal. J. 2(2):163–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ozawa T (1971) A note on the three stages of production. Nebraska J. Econom. Bus. 10(2):60–63.Google Scholar
• Panzar JC, Willig RD (1977) Economies of scale in multi-output production. Quart. J. Econom. 91(3):481–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petersen NC (1990) Data envelopment analysis on a relaxed set of assumptions. Management Sci. 36(3):305–314.Link, Google Scholar
• Podinovski VV (2004) On the linearization of reference technologies for testing returns to scale in FDH models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 152(3):800–802.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post T (2001a) Estimating non-convex production sets—Imposing convex input sets and output sets in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 131(1):132–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post T (2001b) Transconcave data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132(2):374–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen A (1962) An aspect of Indian agriculture. Econom. Political Weekly Annual 14(2):23–36.Google Scholar
• Sickles RC, Zelenyuk V (2019) Measurement of Productivity and Efficiency (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skiba AK (1978) Optimal growth with a convex-concave production function. Econometrica 46(3):527–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar