Technical efficiency, managerial efficiency and objective-setting in the educational system: An international comparison

Journal of the Operational Research Society

Volumn 58, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 996-1007

  Gimenez V ^a   Prior, D ^a   Thieme, C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA SILVA HENRÍQUEZ   (Chile)

Author keywords

Data envelopment analysis; Education; Efficiency

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; EDUCATION; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT;

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS; PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS;

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS;

EID: 85019830447     PISSN: 01605682     EISSN: 14769360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602213     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Banker R and Morey R (1986a). Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Opns Res 34: 513-521.
2. Banker R and Morey R (1986b). The use of categorical variables in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 32: 1613-1627.
3. Banker RD, Charnes A and Cooper WW (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 30: 1078-1092.
4. Barrow MM (1991). Measuring local education authority performance: a frontier approach. Econ Educ Rev 10: 19-27.
5. Bessent A and Bcssent E (1980). Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through data envelopment analysis. Educ Admin Q 16: 57-75.
6. Bessent A, Bessent W, Kennington J and Reagan B (1982). An application of mathematical programming to assess productivity in the Houston independent school district. Mngt Sci 28: 1355-1367.
7. Bifulco R and Bretschneidcr S (2001). Estimating school efficiency. A comparison of methods using simulated data. Econ Educ Rev 20: 417-429.
8. Brockett P and Golany B (1996). Using rank statistics for determining programmatic efficiency differences in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 42: 466-472.
9. Charnes A, Cooper W and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Opl Res 2: 429-444.
10. Charnes A, Cooper W and Rhodes E (1981). Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Mngt Sci 27: 668-697.
11. Charnes A, Cooper W, Lewin A and Seiford L (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory Methodology and Application. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston.
12. Commission of the European Communities (2001). The concrete future objectives of education systems. Final Report from the Commission 59, Brussels.
13. Darling-Hammond L (1991). Accountability mechanisms in big city school systems. ERIC/CUE Digest, 17.
14. Delannoy F (1998). Reformas en gestión educacional en los 90s. Human Development Department, LCSHD Paper Series N. 21, The World Bank.
15. Färe R (1984). The existence of plant capacity. Int Econ Rev 25: 209-213.
16. Färe R, Grosskopf S and Kokkelenberg EC (1989a). Measuring plant capacity, utilization and technical change: a nonparamctric approach. Int Econ Rev 30: 655-666.
17. Färe R, Grosskopf S and Lovell CAK (1985). The Measurement of Efficiency of Production. Kluwer-Nijhoff: Boston.
18. Färe R, Grosskopf S and Valdmanis V (1989b). Capacity, competition and efficiency in hospitals a nonparametric approach. J Product Anal 1: 123-138.
19. Fried HO, Schmidt S and Yaisawarng S (1999). Incorporating the operating environment into a nonparametric measure of technical efficiency. J Product Anal 12: 249-267.
20. Gould E, Lavy V and Paserman MD (2004). Immigrating to opportunity: estimating the effect of school quality using a natural experiment on Ethiopians in Israel, Q J Econ 119: 489-526.
21. Gray J (1981). A competitive edge: examination results and the probable limits of secondary school effectiveness. Educ Rev 33: 25-35.
22. Gray J, Jesson D and Jones B (1986). Towards a framework for interpreting schools' examination results. In: Rogers R (ed). Education and Social Class 1986. Palmer Press, London, pp 51-57.
23. Hanushek EA and Kimko DD (2000). Schooling, labour force quality, and the growth of the nations. Am Econ Rev 90: 1184-1208.
24. Harris A (2000). What works in school improvement? Lessons from the field and future directions. Educ Res 42: 1-11.
25. Hoxby CM (1999). The productivity of schools and other local public goods producers. J Publ Econ 14: 1-30.
26. Jesson D, Mayston D and Smith P (1987). Performance assessment in the education sector: educational and economic perspectives. Oxford Rev Education 13: 249-266.
27. Johansen L (1968). Production functions and the concept of capacity. In: Forsund FR (ed). Collected Works of Leiv Johansen 1968. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 359-382.
28. Kirjavainen T and Loikkanen HA (1998). Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: an application of DBA and Tobit analysis. Econ Educ Rev 16: 303-311.
29. Levin H and Kelley C (1994). Can education do it alone? Econ Educ Rev 13: 97-108.
30. Lozano-Vivas A, Pastor JT and Hasan I (2001). European bank performance beyond country Borders: What really matters? Eur Fin Rev 5: 141-165.
31. Lozano-Vivas A, Pastor JT and Pastor JM (2002). An efficiency comparison of European banking systems operating under different environmental conditions. J Product Anal 18: 59-77.
32. Ludwin W and Guthrie T (1989). Assessing productivity with data envelopment analysis. Publ Product Rev 12: 361-372.
33. Mancebón MJ and Bandrés E (1999). Efficiency evaluation in secondary schools: the key role of model specification and of ex post analysis of results. Educ Econ 7: 131-152.
34. Mancebón MJ and Mar Molinero C (2000). Performance in primary schools. 7 Opl Res Soc 51: 843-854.
35. Mayston DJ (2003). Measuring and managing educational performance. J Opl Res Soc 54: 679-691.
36. Mayston D and Jesson D (1988). Developing models of educational accountability. Oxford Rev Educ 14: 321-339.
37. Morrison DF (1990). Multivariate Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill: New York.
38. Muñiz M (2002). Separating managerial inefficiency and external conditions in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Opns Res 143: 625-643.
39. Orme C and Smith P (1996). The potential for endogeneity bias in data envelopment analysis. J Opl Res Soc 47: 73-83.
40. Pastor JT (1996). Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis: a generalization. Ann Opns Res 66: 93-102.
41. Ray SC (1991). Resource-use efficiency in public schools: a study of Connecticut data. Mngt Sci 37: 1620-1628.
42. Rico A (1996). Measuring outcome in schools. In: Smith P (ed). Measuring Outcome in the Public Sector 1996. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 118-134.
43. Rivkin SG (2000). School desegregation, academic attainment, and earnings. J Human Resources 35: 333-346.
44. Ruggeiro J, Duncombe W and Miner J (1995). On the measurement and causes of technical inefficiency in local public services: with an application to public education. J Publ Adm Res Theory 5: 403-428.
45. Sammons P, Nuttall D and Cuttancc P (1993). Differential school effectiveness: results from a re-analysis of the Inner London Education Authority's Junior School Project data. Br Educ Res J 19: 381-405.
46. Sengupta JK and Sfeir R (1986). Production frontier estimates of scale in public schools in California. Econ Educ Rev 5: 297-307.
47. Silva-Portela MCA and Thanassoulis E (2001). Decomposing school and school-type efficiency. Eur J Opl Res 132: 357-373.
48. Stevens J (1986). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Erlbaumn: Hillsdalc, NJ.
49. Thanassoulis E and Dunstan P (1994). Guiding schools to improved performance using Data Envelopment Analysis: an illustration with data from a local education authority. J Opl Res Soc 45: 1247-1262.