2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.06.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the performance of universities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: Government’s redistribution of funds judged using DEA efficiency measures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
50
0
7

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
50
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Such high levels of efficiency are not necessarily usual, but also not unexpected with 70 decision making units and 7, respectively 12, indicators. For example, the results of Fandel [97] (2007, p. 527), detailing 10 out of 15 German universities within North Rhine-Westphalia as efficient, with a mean efficiency of 92.77%, by using two inputs and three outputs for the 15 DMU. Also, Johnes [98] (p. 281) reports a mean efficiency of 92.51% regarding 130 UK universities with six inputs and three outputs, also with the lowest individual university efficiency levels around 60%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such high levels of efficiency are not necessarily usual, but also not unexpected with 70 decision making units and 7, respectively 12, indicators. For example, the results of Fandel [97] (2007, p. 527), detailing 10 out of 15 German universities within North Rhine-Westphalia as efficient, with a mean efficiency of 92.77%, by using two inputs and three outputs for the 15 DMU. Also, Johnes [98] (p. 281) reports a mean efficiency of 92.51% regarding 130 UK universities with six inputs and three outputs, also with the lowest individual university efficiency levels around 60%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the production function can be influenced by various factors which are beyond the control of the evaluated observation. Observed in: Taylor and Johnes (1989), Beasley (1990Beasley ( ) (1995, Kao and Yang (1992), Johnes and Johnes (1993, Sinuany et al (1994), , , Athanassopoulos and Shale (1997), , Haksever and Muriagishi (1998), McMillan and Datta (1998), Sarrico and Dyson (2000), Thursby (2000), Ying and Sung (2000), Avkiran (2001), Korhonen et al (2001), Abbott and Doucouliagos (2002) Koksal and Nalcaci (2006), McMillan and Chan (2006), Agasisti and Salerno (2007), Anderson et al (2007), Fandel (2007, Tauer et al (2007), , Johnes and Yu (2008), Kao and Hung (2008), Kuo and Ho (2008), Ray and Jeon (2008), Worthington and Lee (2008) (2010), Dehnokhalaji et al (2010), Kantabutra and Tang (2010), Katharaki and Katharakis (2010), Kempkes and Pohl (2010), Rayeni and Saljooghi (2010), Agasisti et al (2011Agasisti et al ( ) (2012, Johnes and Schwarzenberger (2011), Kounetas et al (2011), Kuah and Wong (2011), , Thanassoulis et al (2011), WolszczakDerlacz and Parteka (2011), Eff et al (2012), …”
Section: Determinants Of Efficiency In Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different to other methodologies, DEA is a frontier searching methodology and not focusing on central trends as is the case with regressions. Due to this facet, DEA proves effective in discovering relationships that remain hidden to other analytical methods given that DEA deals with multiple entrances and exits, contrary to regression that deals only with one output at a time (Sarrico & Dyson, 2000, Fandel, 2007.…”
Section: Efficiency Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%