Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 3
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Indian states exhibit considerable heterogeneity in terms of revenue mobilizing capacities and efforts, development spending and fiscal dependence on the central government. In this context, the paper compares the fiscal performance of major Indian states in terms of two non-parametric performance evaluation models for the period 2009–10 to 2014–15. The study thus uses the conventional two stage framework for efficiency evaluation as well as the two stage conditional performance model. The outcomes enable us to identify front-runners as well as laggards in the area of fiscal management. Further, the study showed that the gross capital formation experienced by the states significantly influences state performance in India. However, the impact of outstanding liabilities on efficiency performance was statistically insignificant.
Go to article

Bibliography

[1] Acharya D., Sahoo B. K., (2017), Dynamic Macroeconomic Performance of Indian States: Some Post-Reform Evidence [in:] Regional Growth and Sustainable Development in Asia. New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives, [eds.:] Batabyal A. A., Nijkamp P., Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
[2] Banker R. D., (1993), Maximum Likelihood, Consistency and Data Envelopment Analysis: A Statistical Foundation, Management Science 39(10), 1265–1273.
[3] Banker R. D., Charnes A., Cooper W. W., (1984), Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiency, Management Science 30(9), 1078–1092.
[4] Banker R. D., Natarajan R, (2008), Evaluating contextual variables affecting productivity using data envelopment analysis, Operations Research 56(1), 48–58.
[5] Banker R. D., Natarajan R., Zhang, D., (2019), Two-stage estimation of the impact of con- textual variables in stochastic frontier production function models using data envelopment analysis: second stage OLS versus bootstrap approaches, European Journal of Operational Research 278(2), 368–84.
[6] Barro R. J., (1990), Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth, Journal of Political Economy 98, S103–S125.
[7] Barro R. J., (1991), Economic growth in a cross section of countries, Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 407–444.
[8] Bhide S., Manoj P., (2002), Evaluating Quality of Budgets with a Composite Index, Economic and Political Weekly 37(13), 1177–1180.
[9] Bjurek H., Kjulin U., Gustafsson B., (1992), Efficiency, productivity and determinants of inefficiency at public day care centers in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94 (Supplement), 173–187.
[10] Basílio M. S., Pires M. C. P., Reis J. F. P., (2016), Portuguese banks’ performance: comparing efficiency with their Spanish counterparts, Eurasian Economic Review 6(1), 27–44, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40822-015-0033-6.
[11] Battese G. E., Coelli T. J., (1995), A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data, Empirical Economics 20 (2), 325–332.
[12] Charnes A., Cooper W. W., Rhodes E. (1978), Measuring Efficiency of Decision Making Unit, European Journal of Operational Research 2(6), 429–444.
[13] Chillingerian J. A., (1995), Evaluating physician efficiency in hospitals: A multivariate analysis of best practices. European Journal of Operational Research 80, 548–574.
[14] Coondoo D., Majumder A., Mukherjee R., Neogi C., (2001), Relative Tax Performances-Analysis for Selected States in India, Economic and political weekly 36(40), 3869–3871.
[15] Devarajan S., Swaroop V., Heng-fu Z.,(1996), The composition of public expenditure and economic growth, Journal of Monetary Economics 37(2-3), 313– 344.
[16] Dholakia A., (2005), Measuring Fiscal Performance of Indian States An Alternative Approach, Economic and Political Weekly 40(30), 3421-28.
[17] Dholakia R. H., Karan N., (2004), Consistent Measurement of Fiscal Deficit and Debt of States in India, Working Paper WP 2004-07-05, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
[18] Diamond J., (1989), Government expenditure and economic growth: An empirical investigation, IMF working paper no. 89/45, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
[19] Efron B., (1979), Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife, Annals of Statistics 7(1), 1–26.
[20] Erden L., Holcombe R. G., (2005), The Effects of Public Investment on Private Investment In Developing Economies, Public Finance Review 33(5), 575–602.
[21] Färe R., Grosskopf S., Lovell C. A. K., (1994), Production Frontiers, Cambridge University Press.
[22] Färe R., Grosskopf S., (1985), A Nonparametric Cost Approach to Scale Efficiency, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 87(4), 594–604.
[23] Farrell M. J., (1957), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Journal of The Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, 120(3), 253–281.
[24] Garg S., Goyal A., Rupayan P., (2017), Why Tax Effort Falls Short of Tax Capacity in Indian States, Public Finance Review 45(2), 232–259.
[25] Goyal R., Khundrakpam J., Ray P., (2004), Is India’s Public Finance Unsustainable? Or, Are the Claims Exaggregated?, Journal of Policy Modelling 26, 401–420.
[26] Jha R., Mohanty, M., Chatterjee S., Chitkara P., (1999), Tax efficiency in selected Indian states, Empirical Economics 24(4), 641–654.
[27] Klopp G. A., (1985), The analysis of the efficiency of production system with multiple inputs and output, PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Industrial and System Engineering College, Chicago.
[28] Koopmans T. C., (1951), An Analysis of Production as an Efficient Combination of Activities [in:] Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, [ed.:] Koopmans T. C., New York Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, Monograph No. 13, John Wiley and Sons.
[29] Mohanty A,. Mishra B. R., (2016), Fiscal Performance Index of the States in India, Prajnan 44(3), 247–267.
[30] Mohanty R. K., Sahoo B. K., Chaudhuri P. K., (2020), Assessing the (eco)macroeconomic performance index of India: A data envelopment analysis approach, Public Affairs, https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2122.
[31] Mundle S., Chowdhury S., Sikdar S., (2016), Governance Performance of Indian States 2001–02 and 2011–12, NIPFP Working Paper No. 2016-164.
[32] Rajaraman I., Bhide S., Pattnaik R. K., (2005), A Study of Debt Sustainability at State Level in India, Reserve Bank of India.
[33] Rangarajan C., Prasad A., (2012), Managing State Debt and Ensuring Solvency- The Indian Experience, WPS6039, Policy Research Working Paper, The World Bank, Economic Policy and Debt Department.
[34] Ramirez M. D., (2004), Is public infrastructure spending productive in the Mexican case? A vector error correction analysis, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 13(2), 159–178.
[35] Ray S. C., Neogi C., (2007), A Non-Radial Measure of Efficiency in Indian Textile Industry: An Analysis of Unit-level Data, working paper No. 38, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, USA.
[36] Reserve Bank of India, (2018), State Finances-A Study of State Budgets 2015–16, RBI, Mumbai.
[37] Reserve Bank of India, (2017), State Finances-A Study of State Budgets 2014–15, RBI, Mumbai.
[38] Sahoo B. K., Acharya D., (2012), Constructing macroeconomic performance index of Indian states using DEA, Journal of Economic Studies 39(1), 63–83.
[39] Shephard R. W., (1953), Cost and Productions, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[40] Shephard R. W., (1970), Theory of Cost and Productions, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[41] Shephard R. W., (1974), Indirect Production Functions, Meisenheim am Glan, Verlag Anton Hain.
[42] Sinha R. P., (2017), Fiscal Performance Benchmarking of Indian States – a Robust Frontier Approach, Central European Review of Economics and Management 1(4), 225–249.
[43] Sinha R. P., (2018), Fiscal Performance of Indian States – a Comparison of Convex and Non-Convex Frontier Approaches, Journal of Governance & Public Policy 8(2), 2–17.
[44] Silverman B. W., (1986), Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
[45] Simar L., Wilson P. W., (1998), Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models, Management Science 44(11), 49–61.
[46] Simar L., Wilson P. W., (2000), A general methodology of bootstrapping in Nonparametric Frontier Models, Journal of Applied Statistics 27(6), 779–802.
[47] Simar L., Wilson P. W., (2007), Estimation and inference in two-stage, semiparametric models of productive efficiency, Journal of Econometrics 136(1), 31– 64.
[48] Simar L., Wilson P. W., (2011), Two-stage DEA: caveat emptor, Journal of Productivity Analysis 36(2), 205–218.
[49] Simm J., Besstremyannaya G., (2016), “Package ‘rDEA’, Version 1.2-5”, available at: https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/rDEA/rDEA.pdf.
[50] Simone A. S., Topalova P., (2009), India’s Experience with Fiscal Rules: An Evaluation and The Way Forward, IMF working paper no. 09/175, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Ram Pratap Sinha
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Government College of Engineering and Leather Technology, Kolkata, India
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article presents a study on the effectiveness of the foundries using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method. The aim of the article

is to analyze the usefulness of DEA method in the study of the relative efficiency of the foundries. DEA is a benchmarking technique

based on linear programming to evaluate the effectiveness of the analyzed objects. The research was conducted in four Polish and two

foreign plants. Evaluated foundries work in similar markets and have similar production technology. We created a DEA model with two

inputs (fixed assets and employment) and one output (operating profit). The model was produced and solved using Microsoft Excel

together with its Solver add-in. Moreover, we wrote a short VBA script to perform automating calculations. The results of our study

include a benchmark and foundries’ ranking, and directions to improve the efficiency of inefficient units. Our research has shown that

DEA can be a very valuable method for evaluating the efficiency of foundries.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

A. Stawowy
J. Duda
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Strengthening the functioning of existing rural piped water supply systems is a critical strategy for ensuring household water security, particularly in water-scarce contexts. Improving operation and maintenance (O&M) of the systems is an important area of focus, commonly plagued by poor reliability and functionality over time. From an economic perspective, there is an opportunity to optimise O&M input efficiencies as a foundation for improved management. This paper presented challenges and opportunities to optimise O&M input efficiencies based on an analysis of water supply systems in Vietnam’s highland areas characterised by mountainous terrain and water scarcity. The analysis focused on state-based agencies for O&M given their mandate for restoring the inefficient systems and identified input norms for guidance on how to optimise O&M activities. We applied an input-oriented data envelopment analysis (DEA) model under constant returns to scale assumption to estimate technical, economic and allocative efficiencies. The results identified efficiency levels of 90%, 30% and 33% respectively. The study suggests a 10% reduction in general input amounts and identified efficient input target values reveal potential reduction rates for technical labour (12%), electricity (12%), as well as the technical and economic norms of technical labour (0.86 person- day∙(100 m3)–1 water sold) and electricity (0.53 kWh∙m–3 water sold). The policy implications for O&M state-based agencies include the adoption of input-based contracting mechanisms, while the government is encouraged to approve water tariffs and provide compensation based on input items to promote water service supply as a public good in water- scarce and challenging areas.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Dao Van Dinh
1
ORCID: ORCID
Phong Tung Nguyen
2
ORCID: ORCID
Tan Tiep Nguyen
3
ORCID: ORCID
Naomi Carrard
4
ORCID: ORCID
Ngoc Minh Nguyen
5
ORCID: ORCID
Ton Nu Hai Au
6
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Institute for Water Resources Economics and Management, No 131, Chua Boc, 10000, Dong Da, Hanoi, Vietnam
  2. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Water Resources, No 2, Ngoc Ha, 10000, Ba Dinh, Hanoi, Vietnam
  3. Vietnam Academy of Water Resources, No 17, Tay Son, Dong Da, 10000, Hanoi, Vietnam
  4. University of Technology Sydney-Institute for Sustainable Futures, Broadway 15-73, Ultimo, 2007, Sydney, Australia
  5. Hanoi Architectural University, km 10, Nguyen Trai, Thanh Xuan, 10000, Hanoi, Vietnam
  6. University of Economics, Hue University, 99 Ho Dac Di, 49000, Hue City, Vietnam

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more