Determinants of Persistent and Transient Technical Efficiency of Milk Production in EU

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTrnková, Gabriela
dc.contributor.authorŽáková Kroupová, Zdeňka
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-25T08:54:54Z
dc.date.available2020-11-25T08:54:54Z
dc.description.abstractThis paper deals with the estimation of technical efficiency of milk production in the EU, its decomposition and the analysis of determinants of transient and persistent efficiency. Attention was focused on specialized milk production using FADN data in the period from 2004 to 2017. The analysis is based on the four-component model that represents the most advanced approach to technical efficiency analysis at present and the multi-step estimation procedure extended by technical efficiency determinants. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of this model based on the multi-step estimation with the inclusion of technical efficiency determinants on this type of specialization in the EU. The results show that the overall technical efficiency achieves the mean value of 68% and is relatively dense around the mean. The persistent inefficiency poses a greater problem for dairy production and varies considerably across European regions compared to the transient part. Based on the assessment of the development of transient efficiency, it is evident that it is influenced by the situation on the dairy market, in particular by the milk crises. The most effective conversion of inputs to outputs is achieved in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Belgium and is least burdened with institutional and structural rigidities. The results show that transient efficiency is positively influenced by paid labour share, rented land share, level of modernization and level of off-farm activities and negatively by the level of subsidies on livestock. The positive effect of the economies of size on persistent efficiency is not proved. However, specialization, despite the higher vulnerability of specialized farms to price shocks, affects persistent efficiency positively. Localization of farms in LFAs, as expected, has a negative impact on persistent technical efficiency.en
dc.formattext
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2020-4-003
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn1212-3609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/158172
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonAddo, F., & Salhofer, K. (2019). Determinants of Persistent and Transient Technical Efficiency of Austrian Crop Farms. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Conference, Braunschweig, Germany, September 25–27, 2019, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.292287
dc.relation.isbasedonAgasisti, T., & Gralka, S. (2017). The transient and persistent efficiency of Italian and German universities: A stochastic frontier analysis (Working Paper No 14/17). Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden, Center of Public and International Economics (CEPIE).
dc.relation.isbasedonAlem, H. (2018). Effects of model specification, short-run, and long-run inefficiency: an empirical analysis of stochastic frontier models. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic), 64, 508–516. https://doi.org/10.17221/341/2017-AGRICECON
dc.relation.isbasedonBadunenko, O., & Kumbhakar, S. C. (2016). When, where and how to estimate persistent and transient efficiency in stochastic frontier panel data models. European Journal of Operational Research, 255(1), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.049
dc.relation.isbasedonBadunenko, O., & Kumbhakar, S. C. (2017). Economies of scale, technical change and persistent and time-varying cost efficiency in Indian banking: Do ownership, regulation and heterogeneity matter? European Journal of Operational Research, 260(2), 789–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.025
dc.relation.isbasedonBerisso, O. (2019). Analysis of Factors Affecting Persistent and Transient Inefficiency of Ethiopia’s Smallholder Cereal Farming. In P. Nilsson & A. Heshmati (Eds.), Efficiency, Equity and Well-Being in Selected African Countries Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being (pp. 199–228). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11419-0_10
dc.relation.isbasedonBojnec, Š., & Fertő, I. (2013). Farm income sources, farm size and farm technical efficiency in Slovenia. Post-Communist Economies, 25(3), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2013.813140
dc.relation.isbasedonBokusheva, B., & Čechura, L. (2017). Evaluating dynamics, sources and drivers of productivity growth at the farm level (OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Paper No. 106). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f2d0601-en
dc.relation.isbasedonColombi, R., Kumbhakar, S. C., Martini, G., & Vittadini, G. (2014). Closed-skew normality in stochastic frontiers with individual effects and long/short-run efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 42(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-014-0386-y
dc.relation.isbasedonColombi, R., Martini, G., & Vittadini, G. (2017). Determinants of transient and persistent hospital efficiency: The case of Italy. Health Economics, 26(S2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3557
dc.relation.isbasedonČechura, L., Grau, A., Hockmann, H., Levkovych, I., & Kroupová, Z. (2017). Catching Up or Falling Behind in European Agriculture: The Case of Milk Production. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(1), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12193
dc.relation.isbasedonČechura, L., & Hockmann, H. (2017). Heterogeneity in Production Structures and Efficiency: An Analysis of the Czech Food Processing Industry. Pacific Economic Review, 22(4), 702–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0106.12217
dc.relation.isbasedonEuropean Parliament. (2018). The EU dairy sector – Main features, challenges and prospects. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/630345/EPRS_BRI(2018)630345_EN.pdf.
dc.relation.isbasedonIrz, X., & Thirtle, C. (2004). Dual Technological Development in Botswana Agriculture: A Stochastic Input Distance Function Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(3), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2004.tb00110.x
dc.relation.isbasedonFäre, R., & Primont, D. (1995). Multi-output production and duality: Theory and application. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
dc.relation.isbasedonFilippini, M., & Greene, W. H. (2014). Persistent and Transient Productive Inefficiency: A Maximum Simulated Likelihood Approach (Working Paper No. 14/197). Zurich: CER-ETH – Center of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2440704
dc.relation.isbasedonFilippini, M., Greene, W., & Masiero, G. (2016). Persistent and transient productive inefficiency in a regulated industry: electricity distribution in New Zealand (IdEP Economic Paper No. 1603). Lugano: USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
dc.relation.isbasedonGreene, W. (2005). Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model. Journal of Econometrics, 126(2), 269–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.05.003
dc.relation.isbasedonHeshmati, A., Kumbhakar, S. C., & Kim, J. (2018). Persistent and Transient Efficiency of International Airlines. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 18(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2018.18.2.3231
dc.relation.isbasedonKostov, P., Davidova, S., & Bailey, A. (2018). Effect of family labour on output of farms in selected EU Member States: a non-parametric quantile regression approach. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 45(3), 367–395. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx036
dc.relation.isbasedonKumbhakar, S. C. (2011a). Estimation of production technology when the objective is to maximize return to the outlay. European Journal of Operational Research, 208(2), 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.09.015
dc.relation.isbasedonKumbhakar, S. C. (2011b). Estimation of Multiple Output Production Functions. Paper presented at the North American Productivity Workshop, June 2–5, 2010, Rice University, Houston, Texas; and Asia-Pacific Productivity Conference, July 21–23, 2010, Taipei, Taiwan.
dc.relation.isbasedonKumbhakar, S. C., Lien, G., Flaten, O., & Tveterås, R. (2008). Impacts of Norwegian Milk Quotas on Output Growth: A Modified Distance Function Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(2), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2008.00154.x
dc.relation.isbasedonKumbhakar, S. C., Lien, G., & Hardaker, J. B. (2014). Technical efficiency in competing panel data models: a study of Norwegian grain farming. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 41(2), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-012-0303-1
dc.relation.isbasedonLai, H.-P., & Kumbhakar, S. C. (2018). Panel data stochastic frontier model with determinants of persistent and transient inefficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 271(2), 746–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.043
dc.relation.isbasedonLatruffe, L., Bravo-Ureta, B., Moreira, V., Desjeux, Y., & Dupraz, P. (2011). Productivity and subsidies in European Union countries: An analysis for dairy farms using input distance frontiers. Paper presented at EAAE 2011 Congress Change and Uncertainty, August 30–September 2, 2011, Zürich, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.114396
dc.relation.isbasedonLatruffe, L., Bravo‐Ureta, B. E., Carpentier, A., Desjeux, Y., & Moreira, V. H. (2016). Subsidies and Technical Efficiency in Agriculture: Evidence from European Dairy Farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(3), 783–799. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaw077
dc.relation.isbasedonLien, G., Kumbhakar, S. C., & Alem, H. (2018). Endogeneity, heterogeneity, and determinants of inefficiency in Norwegian crop-producing farms. International Journal of Production Economics, 201, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.04.023
dc.relation.isbasedonMadau, F. A., Furesi, R., & Pulina, P. (2017). Technical efficiency and total factor productivity changes in European dairy farm sectors. Agricultural and Food Economics, 5(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-017-0085-x
dc.relation.isbasedonNowak, A., Kijek, T., & Domańska, K. (2016). Technical efficiency and its determinants in the European Union. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic), 61(6), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.17221/200/2014-agricecon
dc.relation.isbasedonNjuki, E., & Bravo-Ureta, B. E. (2015). The Economic Costs of Environmental Regulation in U.S. Dairy Farming: A Directional Distance Function Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(4), 1087–1106. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aav007
dc.relation.isbasedonNjuki, E., Bravo-Ureta, B. E., & Mukherjee, D. (2016). The good and the bad: Environmental efficiency in Norrheastern U.S. Dairy Farming. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 45(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2016.1
dc.relation.isbasedonPisulewski, A., & Marzec, J. (2019). Heterogeneity, transient and persistent technical efficiency of Polish crop farms. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 17(1), e0106. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2019171-13926
dc.relation.isbasedonPollak, R. (1985). A transaction cost approach to families and households. Journal of Economic Literature, 23(2), 581–608.
dc.relation.isbasedonRasmussen, S. (2010). Scale efficiency in Danish agriculture: an input distance-function approach. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 37(3), 335–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq023
dc.relation.isbasedonRudinskaya, T., Hlavsa, T., & Hruska, M. (2019). Estimation of technical efficiency of Czech farms operating in less favoured area. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic), 65(10), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.17221/52/2019-agricecon
dc.relation.isbasedonSipiläinen, T., Kumbhakar, S. C., & Lien, G. (2014). Performance of dairy farms in Finland and Norway from 1991 to 2008. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbt012
dc.relation.isbasedonSkevas, I., Emvalomatis, G., & Brümmer, B. (2018). Heterogeneity of Long-run Technical Efficiency of German Dairy Farms: A Bayesian Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12231
dc.relation.isbasedonTsionas, E. G., & Kumbhakar, S. C. (2014). Firm heterogeneity, persistent and transient technical inefficiency: A generalized true random-effects model. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2300
dc.relation.isbasedonWang, H.-J. (2002). Heteroskedasticity and non-monotonic efficiency effects of a stochastic frontier model. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 18(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020638827640
dc.relation.isbasedonZhu, X., Demeter, R. M., & Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. (2012). Technical efficiency and productivity differentials of dairy farms in three EU countries: the role of CAP subsidies. Agricultural Economics Review, 13(1), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.253496
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjecttechnical efficiencyen
dc.subjecttransient efficiencyen
dc.subjectpersistent efficiencyen
dc.subjectfour-component modelen
dc.subjectdeterminantsen
dc.subjectmilk productionen
dc.subject.classificationC23
dc.subject.classificationD24
dc.subject.classificationQ12
dc.titleDeterminants of Persistent and Transient Technical Efficiency of Milk Production in EUen
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage54
local.citation.spage39
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.filenameEM_4_2020_3
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.issue4
local.relation.volume23
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_4_2020_03.pdf
Size:
1011.88 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
článek
Download
Collections
Číslo 4