The Joint Measurement of Technical and Allocative Inefficiencies
技术无效率与配置无效率的联合测度AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要依据成本最小化行为和成本方程系统估计企业无效率,直接涉及结构估计。
技术无效率与配置无效率的联合测度AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This article estimates technical and allocative inefficiencies and increase in costs therefrom of individual firms using a translog cost system consisting of the cost function and the cost share equations. We call it a nonlinear random-effects system because technical and allocative inefficiencies are random (hence the term random effects) and are separated from the random noise terms appearing in each equation of the system, and because the inefficiency terms appear in the system in a highly nonlinear fashion, which helps in separating them from random errors. We use Bayesian inference procedures based on Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques to estimate the proposed system. Inferences on firm-specific technical inefficiency and both input-specific and firm-specific allocative inefficiencies are developed using MCMC techniques. We apply the new methods to a sample of 500 U.S. commercial banks. We focus on input allocation problem based on the assumption that banks minimize cost. Empirical results show that cost for the top (bottom) 10% of banks is increased by at least 3% (11%) due to technical inefficiency. In contrast, very few banks are found to be efficient in allocating all the inputs. Costs are increased by 13% on average due to input misallocation. Increase in costs due to both technical and allocative inefficiencies for the top (bottom) 10% of the banks is at least 11% (29%). When translated into dollar figures, this result indicates that elimination of technical and allocative inefficiencies would save the top (bottom) 10% of the banks more than $$.20 ($$3.56) million. We also find that none of the banks in our sample exceeded the efficient scale size, although most of them were operating near their optimum scale (unitary returns to scale).