Stochastic frontiers, productivity effects and development projects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17811/ebl.3.1.2014.51-58Abstract
A common objective of many development projects is to promote output growth as well as better management in order to improve incomes and reduce poverty. In other words, the purpose is to induce upwards shifts in the production frontier (i.e., technological change) while also promoting better management (i.e., narrowing the gap from the frontier). Given the link between managerial performance and technical efficiency, stochastic production frontiers are well suited for the task from a methodological point of view. Despite this suitability, work linking stochastic frontiers with impact evaluation methods has just begun and a major hurdle is resolving biases that might arise from selection on observables and unobservables. This article provides an overview of how impact evaluation and stochastic frontiers, two well-established areas in applied econometrics, are being brought together to shed light on the productivity effects of agricultural development interventions.
References
Angrist, J. and Pischke, J. (2009) Mostly harmless Econometrics, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Barrett, C. and Carter, M. (2010) The power and pitfalls of experiments in Development Economics: some non-random reflections, Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 32, 515-548.
Bradford, D, Kleit, A., Krousel-Wood, M. and Re, R. (2001) Stochastic frontier estimation of cost models within the hospital, Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 302–309.
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, 55-72.
Bravo-Ureta, B.E., Solís, D., Cocchi, H. and Quiroga, R. (2006) The impact of soil conservation and output diversification on farm income in Central American hillside farming, Agricultural Economics, 35, 267-276.
Bravo-Ureta, B.E, Solís, D., Moreira, V., Maripani, J., Thiam, A. and Rivas, T. (2007) Technical efficiency in farming: a meta-regression analysis, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 27, 57-72.
Caliendo, M. and Kopeinig, S. (2008) Some practical guidance on the implementation of propensity score matching, Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72.
Cavatassi, R., González-Flores, M.M., Winters, P., Andrade-Piedra, J., Espinosa, P. and Thiele, G. (2011) Linking smallholders to the new Agricultural Economy: the case of the Plataformas de Concertación in Ecuador, Journal of Development Studies, 41, 62-89.
Cooper, W.W. and Lovell, C.A.K. (2011) History lessons, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 36, 193-200.
Dinar, A., Karagiannis, G. and Tzouvelekas, V. (2007) Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension on farm’s performance in Crete: a non-neutral stochastic frontier approach, Agricultural Economics, 36, 135-146.
Duflo, E., Glennerster, R. and Kremer, M. (2008) Using randomization in Development Economics research: a toolkit, in Schultz, T. and Strauss, J. (eds) Handbook of Development Economics, 3895-3962, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gertler, P.J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L.B. and Vermeersch, C.M.J. (2011) Impact evaluation in practice, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
González-Flores, M., Bravo-Ureta, B.E., Solís, D. and Winters. P. (2014) The impact of high value markets on smallholder efficiency in the Ecuadorean sierra: a stochastic production frontier approach correcting for selectivity bias, Food Policy, forthcoming.
Fried, H.K., Lovell, C.A.K. and Schmidt, P. (eds) (2010) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Greene, W. (2010) A stochastic frontier model with correction for sample selection, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 34, 15-24.
Heckman, J. (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica, 47, 153–161.
Hoch, I. (1976) Production functions and supply applications for California dairy farms, Giannini Foundation Monograph, 36.
IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011) Impact evaluations in Agriculture: an assessment of the evidence, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kaparakis, E., Miller, S. and Noulas, A. (1994) Short run cost inefficiency of commercial banks: a flexible stochastic frontier approach, Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 26, 21–28.
Khandker, S.R., Koolwal, G.B. and Samad, H.A. (2010) Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices, The World Bank, Washington D.C..
Kumbhakar, S., Tsionas, M. and Sipilainen, T. (2009) Joint estimation of technology choice and technical efficiency: an application to organic and conventional dairy farming, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 31, 151–162.
Lai, H., Polachek, S. and Wang, H. (2009) Estimation of a stochastic frontier model with a sample selection problem, Working Paper, Department of Economics, National Chung Cheng University.
Maffioli, A., Ubfal, D., Vázquez-Baré, G. and Cerdán-Infantes, P. (2011) Extension services, product quality and yields: the case of grapes in Argentina, Agricultural Economics, 42, 727-734.
Martin, J.P. and Page Jr, J.M. (1983) The impact of subsidies on X-efficiency in LDC industry: theory and an empirical test, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65, 608-617.
Mayen, C., Balagtas, J. and Alexander, C. (2010) Technology adoption and technical efficiency: organic and conventional dairy farms in the United States, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92, 181-195.
Mundlak, Y. (1961) Empirical production function free of management bias, Journal of Farm Economics, 43, 44-56.
Rahman S., Wiboonpongse, A., Sriboonchitta, S. and Chaovanapoonphol, Y. (2009) Production efficiency of jasmine rice producers in Northern and North-Eastern Thailand, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60, 419-435.
Ravallion, M. (2008) Evaluating anti-poverty programs, in Schultz, T. and Strauss, J. (eds) Handbook of Development Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 3787-3846.
Sipiläinen, T. and Oude Lansink, A. (2005) Learning in switching to organic farming, NJF-Seminar 369, NJF Report 1, Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists.
Solís, D., Bravo-Ureta, B.E. and Quiroga, R. (2007) Soil conservation and technical efficiency among hillside farmers in Central America: a switching regression model, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 51, 491-510.
Taylor, T.G. and Shonkwiler, J.S. (1986) Alternative stochastic specifications of the frontier production function, the analysis of agricultural credit programs and technical efficiency, Journal of Development Economics, 21, 149-160.
Taylor, T.G., Drummond, H.E. and Gomes, A.T. (1986) Agricultural credit programs and production efficiency: an analysis of traditional farming in Southeastern Minas Gerais, Brazil, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68, 110-119.
Terza, J. (1986) FIML, method of moments and two stage method of moments estimators for nonlinear regression models with endogenous switching and sample selection, Working Paper, Department of Economics, Penn State University.
Terza, J.V. (2009) Parametric nonlinear regression with endogenous switching, Econometric Reviews, 28, 555–580.
Todd, P.E. (2008) Evaluating social programs with endogenous program placement and selection of the treated, in Schultz, T. and Strauss, J. (eds) Handbook of Development Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 3846-3894.
Triebs, T.P. and Kumbhakar, S.C. (2013) Production and management: does inefficiency capture management?, paper presented at the 13th EWEPA Meeting, Helsinki, Finland.
Villano, R., Bravo-Ureta, B.E., Solís, D. and Fleming, E. (2014) Modern rice technologies and productivity in The Philippines: disentangling technology from managerial gaps, manuscript.
Winters, P., Salazar, L. and Maffioli, A. (2010) Designing impact evaluations for agricultural projects, Strategy Development Division, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C.
World Bank (2006) Impact evaluation: the experience of the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. Oviedo University Press (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
© Ediuno. Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo / Oviedo University Press
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Non Derives 3.0 Spain (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, publisher and URL of the work), ii) they are not used for commercial purposes, iii) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. The author can archive the post-print version of the article (publisher’s version) on the author’s personal website and/or on the web of the institution where he belong, including a link to the page of the journal and putting the way of citation of the work. Economics and Business Letters and its URL https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/EBL/index are the only authorized source for correctly giving the reference of the publisher’s version in every mention of the article.
