Productivity development of Norwegian institutions of higher education 2004–2013

Abstract Productivity growth of institutions of higher education is of interest for two main reasons: education is an important factor for productivity growth of the economy, and in countries where higher education is funded by the public sector, accountability of resource use is of key interest. Educational services consist of teaching, research and the “third mission” of dissemination of knowledge to the society at large. A bootstrapped Malmquist productivity change index is used to calculate productivity development for Norwegian institutions of higher education over the 10-year period 2004–2013. The confidence intervals from bootstrapping allow part of the uncertainty of point estimates stemming from sample variation to be revealed. The main result is that the majority of institutions have had a positive productivity growth over the total period. However, when comparing with growth in labour input, the impact on productivity varies a lot.

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

[2]  Jill Johnes,et al.  Efficiency and Mergers in English Higher Education 1996/97 to 2008/9: Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimation of the Multi‐Input Multi‐Output Distance Function , 2014 .

[3]  David Hinkley,et al.  Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 2008 .

[4]  F. Førsund,et al.  Generalised Farrell Measures of Efficiency: An Application to Milk Processing in Swedish Dairy Plants , 1979 .

[5]  T. Coelli,et al.  THE PERFORMANCE OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS , 2005 .

[6]  Timo Kuosmanen,et al.  Exact decomposition of the Fisher ideal total factor productivity index , 2009 .

[7]  Finn R. Førsund,et al.  Efficiency and productivity of Norwegian colleges , 1999 .

[8]  R. Färe,et al.  Efficiency and Productivity: Malmquist and More , 2008 .

[9]  F. Førsund,et al.  Slack-adjusted efficiency measures and ranking of efficient units , 1996 .

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

[11]  F. Førsund.  Productivity Interpretations of the Farrell Efficiency Measures and the Malmquist Index and Its Decomposition , 2016 .

[12]  D. Pidgeon,et al.  The efficiency of measurement , 2018 .

[13]  C. Lovell,et al.  A note on the Malmquist productivity index , 1995 .

[14]  Léopold Simar,et al.  Estimating and bootstrapping Malmquist indices , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[16]  Kristof De Witte,et al.  Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way forward , 2017, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[17]  James L. Jackson,et al.  International Handbook on the Economics of Education , 2008 .

[18]  Finn R. Førsund,et al.  Malmquist Indices of Productivity Growth during the Deregulation of Norwegian Banking, 1980-89 , 1992 .

[19]  Mieko Nishimizu.  Total factor productivity growth, technological progress and technical efficiency change : dimensions of productivity change in Yugoslavia, 1965-1978 , 1982 .

[20]  F. Førsund,et al.  The Tax Man Cometh - but is he Efficient? , 2006, National Institute Economic Review.

[21]  G. Kempkes,et al.  The efficiency of German universities–some evidence from nonparametric and parametric methods , 2010 .

[22]  R. Färe,et al.  Productivity changes in Swedish pharamacies 1980–1989: A non-parametric Malmquist approach , 1992 .

[23]  P. W. Wilson,et al.  Statistical Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: The State of the Art , 1999 .

[24]  Lennart Hjalmarsson,et al.  Are all Scales Optimal in DEA? Theory and Empirical Evidence , 2004 .

[25]  Finn R. Førsund,et al.  Calculating scale elasticity in DEA models , 2004, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[26]  Andrew C. Worthington,et al.  Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003 , 2008 .

[27]  P. J. Green,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

[28]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[29]  J. Warford,et al.  Total Factor Productivity Growth , Technological Progress , and Technical Efficiency Change Dimensions of Productivity Change in Yugoslavia , 1965-78 , 2022 .

[30]  K. Field,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of British universities: a multi‐period data envelopment analysis , 2004 .

[31]  Dag Fjeld Edvardsen,et al.  Productivity of tax offices in Norway , 2015 .

[32]  Léopold Simar,et al.  Efficiency and economies of scale and specialization in European universities: A directional distance approach , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[33]  Ole Bent Olesen,et al.  Stochastic Data Envelopment Analysis - A review , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[34]  Léopold Simar,et al.  Non-parametric tests of returns to scale , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[35]  P. W. Wilson,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models , 1998 .

[36]  Joanna Wolszczak-Derlacz,et al.  Dynamics of productivity in higher education: cross-european evidence based on bootstrapped Malmquist indices , 2013 .

[37]  P. Andersen,et al.  A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis , 1993 .

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

[39]  A. Worthington.  An Empirical Survey of Frontier Efficiency Measurement Techniques in Education , 2001 .

[40]  Aroop K. Mahanty,et al.  THEORY OF PRODUCTION , 1980 .

[41]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Efficiency in education , 2017, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[42]  C. Timmer.  Using a Probabilistic Frontier Production Function to Measure Technical Efficiency , 1971, Journal of Political Economy.

[43]  Jill Johnes,et al.  Efficiency and Productivity Change in the English Higher Education Sector from 1996/97 to 2004/5 , 2008 .

[44]  Philippe Vanden Eeckaut,et al.  Non-parametric efficiency, progress and regress measures for panel data: Methodological aspects☆ , 1995 .