Using Data Envelopment Analysis: A Case of Universities

• Authors: Tomáš Rosenmayer
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of this article is to analyse appropriateness and adequacy of use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in several research papers dealing with effectiveness of economy of universities. The Data Envelopment Analysis is an interesting method used for evaluation of technical efficiency of production units. Comparison is the basic method of this article. At the beginning, basic methodological questions of measurement and evaluation of efficiency are analysed, including definitions of terms efficiency and effectiveness, ways of measurement and formulation of appropriate indicators. Based on the given perquisites for measurement and evaluation of efficiency five articles on evaluation of efficiency of universities using DEA method, published in Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Germany and Spain in 1998 - 2008, will be assessed. DEA is able to use more parameters of input and output to evaluate which of units under examination is the most effective, and to compare other units with it. For this, it is necessary to have a homogenous group of units. The result of assessment shows that all the examined studies focused rather on way of calculation then the point and reason of measurement. The articles contain a discussion concerning choice of appropriate indicators but do not at all deal with the issue of its construction using interventional logic; the articles do not contain any comparison of objectives of the particular universities. Evaluation of efficiency of universities is a social construct and it will always be a subjective matter related to objectives of a particular stakeholder. This fact explains how to approach the evaluation of efficiency: it is necessary to set an objective function that means to set the objectives of a given stakeholder and his preferred results and outputs. All the studies lack this basic logic.

Keywords

EN

public services; organizational effectiveness; universities; data envelopment analysis

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Review of Economic Perspectives
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 34-54

Dates

published

2014-03-01

online

2014-04-12

Contributors

author

Tomáš Rosenmayer

• Masaryk University, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Lipová 41a, 602 00 Brno

References

• ABOTT, M., DOUCOULIAGOS, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review. 22, pp. 89-97. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00068-1[Crossref]
• ABZUG, R., WEBB, N. J. (1999). Relationships Between Nonprofit and For-Profit Organizations: A Stakeholder Perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28 (4), pp. 416-431.[Crossref]
• AHN, T., CHARNES, A., COOPER, W.W. (1988). Some Statistical and DEA Evaluations of Relative Efficiencies of Public and Private Institutions of Higher Education, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 6, pp. 259-269.[Crossref]
• ALLEN, R., TOMASSI, D. (2001). Managing public expenditure. Paris : OECD.
• BALSER, D., MCCLUSKY, J. (2005). Managing Stakeholder Relationships and Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), pp. 295-315. DOI: 10.1002/nml.70[Crossref]
• BESSENT, A.M., BESSENT E.W., CHARNES A., COOPER W.W., THOROGOOD, N.C. (1983). Evaluation of Educational Program Proposals by Means of DEA, Educational Administration Quarterly. 19, pp. 82-107.[Crossref]
• BROWN, E., SLIWINSKI, A. (2006). Nonprofit Organizations and the Market. In POWELL, W.W., STEINBERG, R. (eds.) The Nonprofit sector. A Research Handbook. 2nd. ed. New Haven and London : Yale Univerzity Press.
• COHN, E., RHINE, S. L.W., SANTOS, M.C (1989). Institutions of Higher Education as Multi-Product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope,” Review of Economics and Statistics. 71, pp. 275-290.
• DALTON, T. C., FITZPATRICK, L. C. (1985). Productivity measurement and the public organization. Review of Policy Research. 4, pp. 519-531. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00252.x DE GROOT, H., MCMAHON, W.W. , VOLKWEIN, J.F. (1991). The Cost Structure of American Research Universities. Review of Economics and Statistics. 73, pp. 424-431.[Crossref]
• DUNDAR, H., LEWIS, D.R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education. 39(6), pp. 607-631.[Crossref]
• DENISTON, O. L., ROSENSTOCK, I. M., WELCH, W., GETTING, V. A. (1968). Evaluation of Program Effectiveness. Public Health Reports. 83(4), pp. 323-335. DOI: 10.2307/4593279[Crossref][PubMed]
• FLEGG, A. T; ALLEN D.O; FIELD K., THURLOW, T.W. (2003). Measuring the Efficiency and Productivity of British Universities: An Application of DEA and the Malmquist Approach. University of the West of England, Department of Economics, series Discussion Papers n. 304.
• GARCIA-ARACIL, A., PALOMARES-MONTERO, D. (2008). Evaluation of Spanish Universities: Efficiency, Technology and Productivity Change. Paper presented in the Prime-Latin America Conference at Mexico City, September 24-26th 2008.
• JOHNES, G. (1992). Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Survey of Recent Work, Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Vol. 8, pp. 19-34. DOI: 10.1093/oxrep/8.2.19[Crossref]
• JOHNES, J., JOHNES, G. (1995) Research Funding and Performance in UK University Departments of Economics: A Frontier Analysis. The Economics of Education Review. 14, pp. 301-14. DOI: 10.1016/0272-7757(95)00008-8[Crossref]
• KEMPKES, G., POHL, C. (2006). The Efficiency of German Universities - Some Evidence form Non-parametric and Parametric Methods. Ifo Working Paper No. 36.
• MANKIW N. G. (2007). Principles of economics. Mason : Thomson Higher Education.
• MCMILLAN, M., DATTA, D. (1998). The Relative Efficiencies of Canadian Universities: A DEA Perspective. Canadian Public Policy. University of Toronto Press, 24(4), pp. 485-511.[Crossref]
• MUSGRAVE, R. MUSGRAVE, B. (1984). Public finance in theory and practice. 4. ed. New York : McGraw-Hill.
• PEARCE, D. (ed.) (1992). Macmillan dictionary of modern economics. 4th ed. London ; Basingstoke : Macmillan.
• ROBINSON, M. (2002). Output-Purchase Funding and Budgeting Systems in the Public Sector. Public Budgeting & Systems. 22, pp. 17-33
• SAMUELSON P., NORDHAUS, W. (1992). Economics. 14th ed. New York : McGraw-Hill.
• SARAFOGLOU, N., HAYNES, K.E. (1996). University Productivity in Sweden: A Demonstration and Explanatory Analysis for Economics and Business Programs, Annals of Regional Science. 30, pp. 285-304. DOI: 10.1007/BF01580523[Crossref]
• SINUANY-STERN, Z., MEHREZ, A., BARBOY, A. (1994). Academic Departments’ Efficiency via DEA, Computers and Operations Research. 21, pp. 543-56. DOI: 10.1016/0305-0548(94)90103-1[Crossref]
• STEINBERG, R. (2006). Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organizations. In POWELL, W.W., STEINBERG, R. (eds.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven & London : Yale University Press. STIGLITZ, J. (2000). Economics of the public sector. 3rd ed. New York : W. W. Norton & Company.
• TOMKINS, C., GREEN, R. (1988). An Experiment in the Use of Data Envelopment Analysis for Evaluating the Efficiency of UK University Departments of Accounting. Financial Accountability and Management. 4, pp. 147-164. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.x [Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/revecp-2014-0003