MEASURING RAILWAY PERFORMANCE WITH ADJUSTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, DATA NOISE AND SLACKS

Conventional data envelopment analysis (DEA) approaches (e.g., CCR model, 1978; BCC model, 1984) do not adjust the environmental effects, data noise and slacks while comparing the relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs). Consequently, the comparison can be seriously biased because the heterogeneous DMUs are not adjusted to a common platform of operating environment and a common state of nature. Although Fried et al. (2002, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 17, 157–174) attempted to overcome this problem by proposing a three-stage DEA approach, they did not account for the slack effects and thus also led to biased comparison. In measuring the productivity growth, Färe et al. (1994, American Economic Review, 84, 66–83) proposed a method to calculate the input or output distance functions. Similarly, they did not take environmental effects, statistical noise and slacks into account and thus also resulted in biased results. To correct these shortcomings, this paper proposes a four-stage DEA approach to measure the railway transport technical efficiency and service effectiveness, and a four-stage method to measure the productivity and sales capability growths, both incorporated with environmental effects, data noise and slacks adjustment. In the empirical study, a total of 308 data points, composed of 44 worldwide railways over seven years (1995-2001), are used as the tested DMUs. The empirical results have shown strong evidence that efficiency and effectiveness scores are overestimated, and productivity and sales capability growths are also overstated, provided that the environmental effects, data noise and slacks are not adjusted. Based on our empirical findings, important policy implications are addressed and amelioration strategies for operating railways are proposed.

[1]  Gordon J. Fielding,et al.  PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR BUS TRANSIT , 1985 .

[2]  K. D. Freeman THE TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE CANADIAN CLASS I RAILWAYS, 1956-1981 , 1985 .

[3]  A. U.S.,et al.  FORMULATION AND ESTIMATION OF STOCHASTIC FRONTIER PRODUCTION FUNCTION MODELS , 2001 .

[4]  M. Farrell The Measurement of Productive Efficiency , 1957 .

[5]  E. Berndt,et al.  Rail Costs and Capital Adjustments in a Quasi-Regulated Environment , 1991 .

[6]  Lawrence W. Lan,et al.  TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY AND SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS FOR RAILWAYS INDUSTRY: DEA APPROACHES , 2003 .

[7]  A. Charnes,et al.  SENSITIVITY OF EFFICIENCY CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE ADDITIVE MODEL OF DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS , 1992 .

[8]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA non-parametric ranking test and index measurement: slack-adjusted DEA and an application to Japanese agriculture cooperatives , 1999 .

[9]  Pedro Cantos,et al.  REGULATION AND EFFICIENCY: THE CASE OF EUROPEAN RAILWAYS , 2001 .

[10]  Harry Mcgeehan,et al.  RAILWAY COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH -- THE CASE OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, 1973-1983. , 1993 .

[11]  Douglas W. Caves,et al.  Productivity Growth, Scale Economies, and Capacity Utilization in U.S. Railroads, 1955-74 , 1981 .

[12]  Chris Nash,et al.  Migration of railway freight transport from command economy to market economy: The case of China , 2002 .

[13]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  A benchmark approach for baseball evaluation , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  A. U.S.,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 2003 .

[15]  Philippe Vanden Eeckaut,et al.  Evaluating the performance of US credit unions , 1993 .

[16]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  The Use of Categorical Variables in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1986 .

[17]  Valter Boljuncic,et al.  Sensitivity analysis in the additive model of data envelopment analysis , 1998, Int. J. Syst. Sci..

[18]  Harold O. Fried,et al.  Incorporating the Operating Environment Into a Nonparametric Measure of Technical Efficiency , 1999 .

[19]  末吉 俊幸,et al.  DEA Sensitivity Analysis by Changing a Reference Set : Regional Contribution to Japanese Industrial Development , 1998 .

[20]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of DEA models for simultaneous changes in all the data , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[21]  Stephen J. Schmidt,et al.  DO MERGERS IMPROVE EFFICIENCY? EVIDENCE FROM DEREGULATED RAIL FREIGHT , 1999 .

[22]  Scott E. Atkinson,et al.  Estimating Radial Measures of Productivity Growth: Frontier vs Non-Frontier Approaches , 1998 .

[23]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  Stability regions for maintaining efficiency in data envelopment analysis , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[24]  Tim Coelli,et al.  A multi-stage methodology for the solution of orientated DEA models , 1998, Oper. Res. Lett..

[25]  Michael W. Tretheway,et al.  THE TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE CANADIAN RAILWAYS, 1956-91. , 1997 .

[26]  Timothy Coelli,et al.  An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis , 1997 .

[27]  R. Färe,et al.  Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries , 1994 .

[28]  L. R. Christensen,et al.  THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF INDEX NUMBERS AND THE MEASUREMENT OF INPUT, OUTPUT, AND PRODUCTIVITY , 1982 .

[29]  John Kennedy,et al.  ASSESSING THE EFFICIENT COST OF SUSTAINING BRITAIN'S RAIL NETWORK: PERSPECTIVES BASED ON ZONAL COMPARISONS , 2004 .

[30]  R. Färe,et al.  Productivity Developments in Swedish Hospitals: A Malmquist Output Index Approach , 1994 .

[31]  S. Malmquist Index numbers and indifference surfaces , 1953 .

[32]  T. Oum,et al.  ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF RAILWAYS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE OECD COUNTRIES' RAILWAYS. IN: RAILWAYS , 2002 .

[33]  J. Cowie,et al.  THE TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IN THE RAIL INDUSTRY. THE CASE OF SWISS PRIVATE RAILWAYS , 1999 .

[34]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Efficiency Analysis for Exogenously Fixed Inputs and Outputs , 1986, Oper. Res..

[35]  H. O. Fried,et al.  Accounting for Environmental Effects and Statistical Noise in Data Envelopment Analysis , 2002 .

[36]  Joe Zhu Robustness of the efficient DMUs in data envelopment analysis , 1996 .

[37]  Janjaap Semeijn,et al.  Issues and initiatives surrounding rail freight transportation in Europe , 2002 .

[38]  A. Charnes,et al.  Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1984 .

[39]  Rolf Färe,et al.  Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency , 1997 .

[40]  Tae Hoon Oum,et al.  A SURVEY OF PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT IN RAIL TRANSPORT , 1999 .

[41]  J. M. Villarroya,et al.  EFFICIENCY, TECHNICAL CHANGE AND PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN RAIL SECTOR: A STOCHASTIC FRONTIER APPROACH , 2000 .

[42]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Slack-adjusted DEA for time series analysis: Performance measurement of Japanese electric power generation industry in 1984-1993 , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[43]  David Kendrick,et al.  GAMS, a user's guide , 1988, SGNM.

[44]  Sergio Perelman,et al.  Technical efficiency of European railways: a distance function approach , 2000 .

[45]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Comparisons and evaluations of alternative approaches to the treatment of congestion in DEA , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[46]  Efthymios G. Tsionas,et al.  DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN EUROPEAN RAILWAYS , 2004 .