The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Contextual Variables Affecting Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis
Abstract
A DEA-based stochastic frontier estimation framework is presented to evaluate contextual variables affecting productivity that allows for both one-sided inefficiency deviations as well as two-sided random noise. Conditions are identified under which a two-stage procedure consisting of DEA followed by ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis yields consistent estimators of the impact of contextual variables. Conditions are also identified under which DEA in the first stage followed by maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) in the second stage yields consistent estimators of the impact of contextual variables. This requires the contextual variables to be independent of the input variables, but the contextual variables may be correlated with each other. Monte Carlo simulations are carried out to compare the performance of our two-stage approach with one-stage and two-stage parametric approaches. Simulation results indicate that DEA-based procedures with OLS, maximum likelihood, or even Tobit estimation in the second stage perform as well as the best of the parametric methods in the estimation of the impact of contextual variables on productivity. Simulation results also indicate that DEA-based procedures perform better than parametric methods in the estimation of individual decision-making unit (DMU) productivity. Overall, the results establish DEA as a nonparametric stochastic frontier estimation (SFE) methodology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wang, H.-J., & Schmidt, P. (2002) · Journal of Productivity Analysis · doi:10.1023/a:1016565719882 · Cited by 1,045 · cited 3×
“Wang and Schmidt (2002) explain that the problem is due to the estimator of technical efficiency u, derived from the first stage residual, having a “shrinkage” towards the mean and as a result showing less dependence on the contextual variables z than it should.”
BackgroundInfluentialMaximum likelihood estimation of econometric frontier functions
Greene, W. H. (1980) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(80)90041-x · Cited by 704
Cited by
Using least squares and tobit in second stage DEA efficiency analyses
McDonald, J. (2009) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.07.039 · Cited by 734
Do bank regulation, supervision and monitoring enhance or impede bank efficiency?
Barth, J. R., Lin, C., Ma, Y., Seade, J., & Song, F. M. (2013) · Journal of Banking & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.030 · Cited by 528
Estimation and Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: Recent Developments and Perspectives
Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2013) · Foundations and Trends in Econometrics · doi:10.1561/0800000020 · Cited by 382
Chuang, H. H., Oliva, R., & Heim, G. R. (2019) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.13055 · Cited by 101
De Witte, K., & Geys, B. (2013) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.09.002 · Cited by 84
Metadata
- Authors
- Banker, R. D., & Natarajan, R.
- Venue
- Operations Research
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-58
- ISSN
- 0030-364X (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5463
- OpenAlex
- W2166385492
- Cited by
- 778
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 34.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating Contextual Variables Affecting Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/opre.1070.0460
- The paper
- Banker, R. D., & Natarajan, R. (2008). Evaluating Contextual Variables Affecting Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1070.0460
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.