Measuring efficiency in the public sector

Smith, Peter; Mayston, David

doi:10.1016/0305-0483(87)90068-5

Cited by 135 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Observed in: Butler and Monk (1985), Sfeir (1986) (1988), Jesson et al (1987), , Smith and Mayston (1987), Mayston and Jesson (1988), Färe et al (1989), Callan and Santerre (1990), Barrow (1991), Ganley and Cubbin (1992), McCarty and Yaisawarng (1993), Chalos and Cherian (1995), Ruggiero et al (1995), Cubbin and Zamani (1996), Engert (1996), , Bates (1997), Chalos (1997), Duncombe et al (1997), Grosskopf et al (1997Grosskopf et al ( ) (1999Grosskopf et al ( ) (2014, Heshmati and Kumbhakar (1997), Ray and Mukherjee (1998), Ruggiero and Bretschneider (1998), , Ruggiero and Vitaliano (1999), Chakraborty et al (2001), Grosskopf and Moutray (2001), Fukuyama and Weber (2002), Banker et al (2004), Primont and Domazlicky (2006), Rassouli-Currier (2007), Denaux (2009, Houck et al (2010), Naper (2010), Ouellette and Vierstraete (2010), Johnson and Ruggiero (2014).…”

Section: Classroom Course Levels Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resources available at home/internet use Jesson et al (1987), Ganley and Cubbin (1992), Cooper and Cohn (1997), Hanushek and Luque (2003), Mancebón and Muñiz (2008), Mongan et al (2011), Perelman andSantín (2011a) (2011b), Mancebón et al (2012), Aristovnik (2013), Deutsch et al (2013), Thieme et al (2013). Socio-economic status (family income, employment) Charnes et al (1981), Smith and Mayston (1987), Sengupta and Sfeir (1988), Barrow (1991), Ganley and Cubbin (1992), Deller and Rudnicki (1993), , , Bates (1997), Cooper and Cohn (1997), Heshmati and Kumbhakar (1997), Mancebón and Bandres (1999), Fukuyama and Weber (2002), Mizala et al (2002), Dolton et al (2003), Mancebón and Muñiz (2008), Denaux (2009), Kantabutra (2009, Agasisti (2011a) (2013), Cordero-Ferrera et al (2011), Perelman andSantín (2011a), Kirjavainen (2012), Mancebón et al (2012), Thieme et al (2013), Crespo-Cebada et al (2014), Podinovski et al (2014). Source: The authors With respect to education institutions variables (see Table 4) the literature has paid attention to study the relationship between traditional educational inputs and educational outcomes.…”

Section: Grantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sarrico et al (2010), Mongan et al (2011). Family structure Jesson et al (1987), Smith and Mayston (1987), Bates (1997), Dolton et al (2003), Perelman and Santín (2011a), Kirjavainen (2012). Parental education Charnes et al (1981), Deller and Rudnicki (1993), Cooper and Cohn (1997), Heshmati and Kumbhakar (1997), Kirjavainen and Loikkanen (1998) (2012), Kong and Fu (2012), Mancebón et al (2012).…”

Section: Grantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way forward

Witte

López-Torres

2017

Journal of the Operational Research Society

303

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La sèrie Documents de treball d'economia de l'empresa presenta els avanços i resultats d'investigacions en curs que han estat presentades i discutides en aquest departament; això no obstant, les opinions són responsabilitat dels autors. El document no pot ser reproduït total ni parcialment sense el consentiment de l'autor/a o autors/res. Dirigir els comentaris i suggerències directament a l'autor/a o autors/res, a la direcció que apareix a la pàgina següent.A Working Paper in the Documents de treball d'economia de l'empresa series is intended as a mean whereby a faculty researcher's thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested readers for their comments. Nevertheless, the ideas put forwards are responsibility of the author. Accordingly a Working Paper should not be quoted nor the data referred to without the written consent of the author. Please, direct your comments and suggestions to the author, which address shows up in the next page. A p r i l 2 0 1 5 EFFICIENCY IN EDUCATION. A REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND A WAY FORWARD AbstractThis paper provides an extensive and comprehensive overview of the literature on efficiency in education. It summarizes the earlier applied inputs, outputs and contextual variables, as well as the used data sources of papers in the field of efficiency in education. Moreover, it reviews the papers on education that applied methodologies as Data Envelopment Analysis, Malmquist index, Bootstrapping, robust frontiers, metafrontier, or Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Based on the insights of the literature review, a second part of the paper provides some ways forward. It attempts to establish a link between the parametric 'economics of education' literature and the (semiparametric) 'efficiency in education literature'. We point to the similarities between matching and conditional efficiency; difference-in-differences and metafrontiers; and quantile regressions and partial frontiers. The paper concludes with some operative directions for prospective researchers in the field.

show abstract

Section: Classroom Course Levels Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Grantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Grantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way forward

Witte

López-Torres

2017

Journal of the Operational Research Society

303

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We distinguish two main administrative benefits: the professionalization of procurement services and the centralization of procedures, which leads to advantages in their control. 22 For some selected works on operational efficiency in the public sector, see: SMITH and MAYSTON (1987); RUGGIERO (1996); ANWANDTER and OZUNA (2002);RANTANEN et al (2007);and AFONSO et al (2010). 23 KARJALAINEN (2009 …”

Section: Administrative Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Public Procurement Aggregation on Competition: Risks, Rationale and Justification for the Rules in Directive 2014/24

Graells

Anchustegui

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This paper assesses the risks, rationale and justification for the rules on centralisation and aggregation of public procurement in Directive 2014/24. The paper explores the justifications advanced for the aggregation of purchasing and the countervailing risks it generates. In both cases, it focusses in economic and administrative aspects. It then proceeds to a summary overview of the new rules for the aggregation of public procurement in Directive 2014/24, and emphasised how the Directive is expressly recognising possibilities that clearly exceed the more modest approach in Directive 2004/18. Moving on, it then focusses on the potential justification for certain activities now permitted by the 2014 rules, and engages in a critical assessment of their competitive impact. The paper briefly highlights the far-reaching and not necessarily positive implications that a maximisation of the centralisation and aggregation possibilities under Directive 2014/24 could have, and proposes that strict competition law enforcement will be necessary to avoid undesired consequences. Some suggestions for further research are provided by way of conclusions

show abstract

“…However, DEA will assign a ratio of 1 to this "specialist" system because its performance in service provision eclipses that of its peer systems, given the level of input resources used. Giokas ( 1991) and Smith and Mayston ( 1987) note that the efficient reference sets of inefficient systems differentiate "specialist" systems from "robustly efficient" systems (i.e., those systems whose maximum ratings do not result solely from superior performance on a unique output measure). A system that appears to be relatively efficient but does not belong to the efficient reference set of any inefficient system is a "specialist."…”

Section: Model Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%