Search results

This paper aims to measure the change and the sources of change in total factor productivity (TFP) of the Indian non-life insurance sector over the period 2005–2016.

This study employs the bootstrapped Malmquist index (MI) to assess the changes in the TFP and adopts a decomposition approach proposed by Balk and Zofío (2018). Moreover, it utilises truncated regression to identify the determinants of the TFP. In addition, it employs Wilcoxon-W test and t-test to scrutinise the difference between the state-owned and the private insurers in terms of variations in TFP and its various components.

The results divulge a miniature improvement in TFP of the insurance sector, which is primarily attributable to the improvement in scale efficiency (economies of scale). The results also reveal that there are no significant TFP differences across the ownership. However, private insurers have better scale efficiency and lower input-mix efficiency than state-owned insurers. In addition, the results unveil that size, diversification and reinsurance have a negative impact on the TFP, while age has a positive impact on it.

The results may help the policymakers to frame new consolidation policies. Moreover, the findings may guide the decision-makers of the Indian non-life insurance companies to abate inefficiency and improve TFP.

This study estimates bias-corrected changes in TFP and efficiency in the non-life insurance sector. Moreover, it adopts an elaborated decomposition of the MI to identify the true sources of change in the TFP.

This chapter provides an empirical assessment of the effects of infrastructure provision on structural change and aggregate productivity using industrylevel data for a set of developed and developing countries over 1995–2010. A distinctive feature of the empirical strategy followed is that it allows the measurement of the resource reallocation directly attributable to infrastructure provision. To achieve this, a two-level top-down decomposition of aggregate productivity that combines and extends several strands of the literature is proposed. The empirical application reveals significant production losses attributable to misallocation of inputs across firms, especially among African countries. Also, the results show that infrastructure provision has stimulated aggregate total factor productivity growth through both within and between industry productivity gains.

There are two main dimensions in which the performance of a production unit can be assessed. The first is the dimension of time. The basic question here is: how is this or that production unit doing over time? Assessing a unit's performance over time is called monitoring. The second dimension is characterized by the question: how is this or that production unit doing relative to other, similar units? To answer this question one needs to specify the reference set of units and one needs sufficient information on each of the members of this set. This activity is usually called benchmarking. A combination of the two dimensions in the setting of a panel is also possible.

The purpose of this paper is to present a refined framework providing clarity in terms of the components of profitability and productivity change from the perspective of the firm level.

The literature is analysed with a scoping study and a systematic literature review. Productivity measurement approaches are compared using data at the product level.

The definition of total factor productivity (TFP) in the literature negatively affects the accuracy of profitability and productivity measurement. In the usual case of a dynamic output mix, TFP change encompasses biasing output mix effects relating to profitability, but not to productivity change. Therefore, this paper defines changes of a ratio of output quantities to input quantities not as TFP change, but as quantitative profitability (QP) change. A framework is proposed decomposing profitability change into price recovery and QP change, whereas the latter comprises of valid productivity change (encompassing technological, technical efficiency and productivity-related scale effects) and output mix change (encompassing proportion, quality, output switching and profitability-related scale effects).

Future research should include literature from the industrial organisation field of economics. The presented framework should be transferred to the standard production function framework used in economics.

The paper can help preventing faulty decision making or distrust due to the use of biased profitability or productivity indicators. TFP-based productivity indicators are unsuitable for most firms. To measure productivity meaningfully, firms should use adequate approaches (e.g. standard input- or adjusted total factor productivity-based ones).

The paper contributes to a more accurate performance measurement approach, as researchers and practitioners better understand the components of profitability and productivity change.

The purpose of this paper is to compare efficiency scores from the benchmarking exercise with those of previous studies and to discuss the reasons behind diverging results.

This paper uses data envelopment analysis (DEA) on primary data of large container terminals.

The results differ strongly from those available in the literature. Causes for these differences are: public (secondary) data are not always accurate; different terminal types are compared; terminals of different scale are compared; and terminals are mixed with ports.

DEA may be appropriate for container terminal benchmarking, but only if better quality and additional input and output data can be obtained. In its application, the analysis should be controlled for terminal types.

Summary of the state of play in the use of DEA methodologies for comparing the efficiency of container terminals at ports.

The chapter reviews and extends the theory of exact and superlative index numbers. Exact index numbers are empirical index number formula that are equal to an underlying theoretical index, provided that the consumer has preferences that can be represented by certain functional forms. These exact indexes can be used to measure changes in a consumer's cost of living or welfare. Two cases are considered: the case of homothetic preferences and the case of nonhomothetic preferences. In the homothetic case, exact index numbers are obtained for square root quadratic preferences, quadratic mean of order r preferences, and normalized quadratic preferences. In the nonhomothetic case, exact indexes are obtained for various translog preferences.