Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2015 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2

Measurement of agriculture efciency in oecd countries: Dynamic data envelopment analysis

Oecd ülkelerinde tarımsal etkinlik ölçümü: Dinamik veri zarfama analizi

Pages
217–228
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is also seen that themain source of ineficiency in the agricultural sector is dynamicineficiency for 25 of the 29 OECD countries over the study period.Dynamic ineficiency indicates that the countries are unsuccessfulin their inter-temporal decision-making processes or that quasi-fixed inputs are not used in their optimal levels.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper aims to measure agricultural eficiency levels of OECDcountries using Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis (DDEA)over the 1966-2007 period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The DDEA pays attention to inter-temporal input output dependency and allows the modeling ofinter-temporal behaviors of the economic decision-making unitsfor a given period.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is also seen that themain source of ineficiency in the agricultural sector is dynamicineficiency for 25 of the 29 OECD countries over the study period.Dynamic ineficiency indicates that the countries are unsuccessfulin their inter-temporal decision-making processes or that quasi-fixed inputs are not used in their optimal levels.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper aims to measure agricultural eficiency levels of OECDcountries using Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis (DDEA)over the 1966-2007 period. The DDEA pays attention to inter-temporal input output dependency and allows the modeling ofinter-temporal behaviors of the economic decision-making unitsfor a given period. The findings of this study show that the mosteficient countries in the agricultural sector are Italy, Belgium-Luxemburg, Holland and New Zealand. It is also seen that themain source of ineficiency in the agricultural sector is dynamicineficiency for 25 of the 29 OECD countries over the study period.Dynamic ineficiency indicates that the countries are unsuccessfulin their inter-temporal decision-making processes or that quasi-fixed inputs are not used in their optimal levels.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Dinamik Veri Zarfama Analizi yaklaşımı kullanılarak OECD ülkelerinin 1966-2007 dönemi tarımsal etkinlik düzeylerinin ölçülmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Dinamik VeriZarfama Analizi ekonomik karar birimlerin tarımsal etkin lik düzeylerinin hesaplanmasında dönemlerarası girdi-çıktıbağımlılığını göz önüne alan veya diğer bir ifadeyle ekonomikkarar birimlerinin dönemlerarası davranışlarının modellenmesine olanak sağlayan bir yaklaşımdır. Bu çerçevedeçalışma bulguları, İtalya, Belçika-Lüksemburg, Hollanda veYeni Zelandanın tarımsal üretimde en etkin ülkeler olduğunugöstermektedir. Öte yandan, çalışmamız kapsamındaki 29OECD ülkesinin 25inde tarım sektöründeki etkinsizliğintemel kaynağını dinamik etkinsizliğin oluşturduğu görülmektedir. Dinamik etkinsizliğin ön plana çıkması ise ülkelerin dönemlerarası karar alma süreçlerinde başarısızolduklarını yada yarı-sabit girdilerini optimal düzeylerdekullanılmadıklarını belirtmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUNCA, H., DELİKTAŞ, E. (2022). Measurement of agriculture efciency in oecd countries: Dynamic data envelopment analysis. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 217–228. https://ajindex.com/articles/495309

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Arnade, C. (1998). Using a Programming Approach to Measure International Agricultural Eficiency and Pro - ductivity. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49 (1), 67-84.
  2. Chen, C.-M., ve Dalen, J. V. (2010). Measuring dyna- mic eficiency: Teories and an integrated methodolgy. European Journal of Operational Research, 203, 749-760.
  3. Coelli, T. J., ve Rao, P. (2003). Total Factor Producti- vity Growth in Agriculture: A Malmquist Index Analysis of 93 Countries, 1980-2000.
  4. CEPA Working Papers Series, No: 02/2003.
  5. Deliktas, E., Ersungur, S. M., ve Candemir, M. (2005). Te Comparison of Agricultural Eficiency and Producti- vity Growth in the EU and Turkey. International Journal of Business, Management and Economics, 1 (1), 109-124.
  6. Emrouznejad, A.,ve Tanassoulis, E.(2005).A mat- hematical model for dynamic eficiency using data en- velopment analysis. Applied Mathematics and Computa- tion,160,363-378.
  7. FAO Statistics Division. (1986). Inter-country com- parisons of agricultural production aggregates. FAO Eco- nomic and Social Development Paper, No: 61. FAO. (2011). FAOSTAT-Agriculture: faostat.fao.org adresinden alınmıştır Fulginiti, L. E., ve Perrin, R. K. (1997). LDC agri- culture: Nonparametric Malmquist productivity indexes. Journal of Development Economics, 53, 373-390.
  8. Fulginiti, L. E., ve Perrin, R. K. (1998). Agricultural productivity in developing countries. Agricultural Econo- mics, 19, 45-51.
  9. Galanopoulos, K., Lindberg, E., Surry, Y., ve Mattas, K. (2006). Agricultural Productivity Growth in the Medi- terranean and Test of Covergence Among Countries. 98. EAAE Seminar. Crete, Greece. Geymueller, P. v. (2009). Static versus dynamic DEA in electricity regulation: the case of US transmission system operators. CEJOR, 17, 397-413.
  10. Hayami, Y. (1969). Industrialization and Agricultural Productivity: An International Comparative Study. Te Developing Economics, 7 (1)3-21.
  11. Headey, D., Alauddin, M., ve Rao, P. (2010). Expla- ining agricultural productivity growth: an international perspective. Agricultural Economics, 41, 1-14. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFP- RI). (2000). Global Study Reveals New Warning Signals: Degraded Agricultural Lands Treaten World’s Food Pro- duction Capacity. New Release. 21 May. Jaenicke, E. C. (2000). Testing for Intermediate Outputs in Dynamic DEA Models: Accounting for Soil Capital in Rotational Crop Prouction and Productivity Measures. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 14, 247-266.
  12. Kawagoe, T., Hayami, Y., ve