A DEA methodology to evaluate the impact of information asymmetry on the efficiency of not-for-profit organizations with an application to higher education in Brazil

Annals of Operations Research

Volumn 173, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 39-56

  de França, José Mairton Figueiredo ^a   de Figueiredo, João Neiva ^b   dos Lapa, Jair Santos ^c  

^a DEPARTAMENTO DE FÍSICA   (Brazil)

^b SAINT JOSEPH S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Agency theory; Data envelopment analysis; Information asymmetry; Moral hazard; Not for profit organizations; Organizational efficiency

Indexed keywords

EID: 76649095654     PISSN: 02545330     EISSN: 15729338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-009-0536-1     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 89-97.
2. Agasisti, T., & Bianco, A. D. (2006). Data envelopment analysis to the Italian university system: theoretical issues and policy implications. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 8(4), 344-367.
3. Ahn, T., & Seiford, L. M. (1993). Sensitivity of DEA to models and variable sets in a hypothesis test setting: the efficiency of university operations. In Ijiri, Y. (Ed.). Creative and innovative approaches to the science of management. Westport: Quorum Books.
4. Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.
5. Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 5(2), 117-134.
6. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies. Management Science, 39, 1078-1092.
7. Beasley, J. E. (1995). Determining teaching and research efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), 441-452.
8. Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.
9. Bogetoft, P. (1994). Incentive efficient production frontiers: an agency perspective on DEA. Management Science, 40, 959-968.
10. Bogetoft, P. (1997). DEA-based yardstick competition: the optimality of best-practice regulation. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 277-298.
11. Bogetoft, P. (2000). DEA and activity planning under asymmetric information. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 7-48.
12. Bougnol, M. L., & Dulá, J. H. (2006). Validating DEA as a ranking tool: an application of DEA to assess performance in higher education. Annals of Operations Research, 145, 339-365.
13. Carlton, D. W., & Perloff, J. M. (2004). Modern industrial organization. New York: Addison Wesley.
14. Castano, M. C. N., & Cabanda, E. C. (2007). Performance evaluation of Philippine private higher educational institutions: application of frontier approaches. International Transactions in Operational Research, 14(5), 431-444.
15. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
16. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Golany, D., & Seiford, L. M. (1985). Foundations of data envelopment analysis to Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. Journal of Econometrics, 30, 91-107.
17. Cooper, W. W., Park, K. S., & Pastor, J. T. (1999). RAM: a range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models and relations to other models and measures in DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 11, 5-42.
18. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2006). Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, reference and DEA-solver software (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
19. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2004). Handbook on data envelopment analysis (international series in operations research & management science). New York: Springer.
20. Fandel, G. (2007). On the performance of universities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: government's redistribution of funds judged using DEA efficiency measures. European Journal of Operational Research, 176(1), 521-533.
21. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1994). Production frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Flegg, A. T., Allen, D. O., & Field, K. (2004). Measuring the efficiency of British universities: a multi-period data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 12(3), 231-249.
23. França, J. M. F. (2005). Um modelo para avaliar o impacto da assimetria de informação na gestão de organizações sociais com aplicação às universidades Federais Brasileiras. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
24. Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1983). An analysis of the principal-agent problem. Econometrica, 51, 7-45.
25. Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 74-91.
26. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
27. Johnes, G., & Johnes, J. (1993). Measuring the research performance of UK economics departments: an application of data envelopment analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 45(2), 332-347.
28. Junoy-Puig, J. (2000). Partitioning input cost efficiency into its allocative and technical components: an empirical DEA application to hospitals. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34, 199-218.
29. Lins, M. P. E., Novaes, L. F. L., & Legey, L. F. L. (2005). Real estate appraisal: a double perspective data envelopment analysis approach. Annals of Operations Research, 138, 79-96.
30. Marinho, A., Resende, M., & Façanha, L. O. (1997). Brazilian federal universities: relative efficiency evaluation and data envelopment analysis. Revista Brasileira de Economia, 51(4), 489-508.
31. Martín, E. (2006). Efficiency and quality in the current higher education context in Europe: an application of the data envelopment analysis methodology to performance assessment of departments within the university of Zaragoza. Quality in Higher Education, 12(1), 57-79.
32. McMillan, M. L., & Debasish, D. (1998). The relative efficiencies of Canadian universities: a DEA perspective. Canadian Public Policy, 24(4), 485-512.
33. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1989). An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 154-175.
34. Nalebuff, B., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1983). Prizes and incentives: towards a general theory of compensation and competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 21-43.
35. Ng, Y. C., & Li, S. K. (2000). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions: an application of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 8(2), 139-156.
36. Norman, M., & Stoker, B. (1991). Data envelopment analysis: the assessment of performance. New York: Wiley.
37. Salinas-Jimenez, J., & Smith, P. (1996). Data envelopment analysis applied to quality in primary health care. Annals of Operations Research, 67, 141-161.
38. Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic department efficiency via DEA. Computers & Operations Research, 21(5), 543-556.
39. Stiglitz, J. E. (1989). Imperfect information in the product market. In R. Schmalensee & R. D. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization (pp. 769-847). Amsterdam: North Holland.
40. Taylor, B., & Harris, G. (2004). Relative efficiency among South African universities: a data envelopment analysis. The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 47(1), 73-89.
41. Tone, K. (2000). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 99(1), 72-89.