ALLOCATIVE EFFICIENCY OF RURAL NEVADA WATER SYSTEMS: A HEDONIC SHADOW COST FUNCTION APPROACH*

. The efficiency of the water utility firms in rural Nevada and their input optimization are examined in this study. The empirical methodology incorporates a hedonic specification of the nonminimum globally concave cost function in estimating the effect of the regulatory environment and the quality of water services on the optimum utilization of inputs. Allocative distortions are introduced through shadow prices and are specified as functions of regressors which make distortion factors firmand input-specific. The results show that 76 percent of the water utilities of rural Nevada in the sample overutilize energy relative to labor. The impact of allocative distortions on each firm's cost is also computed.

[1]  R. F. Gilbert,et al.  Small Sample Properties of Alternative Estimators of Seemingly Unrelated Regressions , 1968 .

[2]  C. Blackorby,et al.  The Morishima Elasticity of Substitution; Symmetry, Constancy, Separability, and its Relationship to the Hicks and Allen Elasticities , 1981 .

[3]  Donn R. Pescatrice,et al.  The performance and objectives of public and private utilities operating in the United States , 1980 .

[4]  Ernst R. Berndt,et al.  Parametric Productivity Measurement and Choice Among Flexible Functional Forms , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  Elliott Parker,et al.  An Examination of the Effect of Ownership on the Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Water Utilities , 1994 .

[6]  D. Aigner,et al.  P. Schmidt, 1977,?Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models,? , 1977 .

[7]  L. Lau,et al.  A Test for Relative Efficiency and Application to Indian Agriculture , 1971 .

[8]  David Glyer,et al.  Cost of Water Delivery Systems: Specification and Ownership Effects , 1987 .

[9]  W. Schmidt,et al.  Studies of a Class of Covariance Structure Models , 1973 .

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

[11]  Susan Feigenbaum,et al.  Public versus Private Water Delivery: A Hedonic Cost Approach , 1983 .

[12]  Subal C. Kumbhakar,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT AND DECOMPOSITION OF COST-INEFFICIENCY: THE TRANSLOG COST SYSTEM* , 1991 .

[13]  W. Diewert,et al.  Flexible Functional Forms and Global Curvature Conditions , 1989 .

[14]  R. Färe,et al.  The relative performance of publicly-owned and privately-owned electric utilities , 1985 .

[15]  Gary D. Ferrier,et al.  Measuring cost efficiency in banking: Econometric and linear programming evidence , 1990 .

[16]  S. Kumbhakar,et al.  Price Distortions and Resource-Use Efficiency in Indian Agriculture: A Restricted Profit Function Approach , 1992 .

[17]  Thomas J. Kniesner,et al.  Estimating a Non-minimum Cost Function for Hospitals* , 1988 .

[18]  Scott E. Atkinson,et al.  PARAMETRIC EFFICIENCY TESTS, ECONOMIES OF SCALE, AND INPUT DEMAND IN U. S. ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION* , 1984 .

[19]  R. Robert Russell,et al.  Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities) , 1989 .

[20]  S. Kumbhakar.  Allocative Distortions, Technical Progress, and Input Demand in U.S. Airlines: 1970-1984 , 1992 .

[21]  W. Greene.  On the estimation of a flexible frontier production model , 1980 .

[22]  R. Halvorsen,et al.  The relative efficiency of public and private firms in a regulated environment: The case of U.S. electric utilities , 1986 .

[23]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Estimating Demand for Intake Water by Self‐Supplied Firms , 1984 .