| Literature DB >> 23077500 |
Md Kamrul Hossain1, Anton Abdulbasah Kamil, Md Azizul Baten, Adli Mustafa.
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to apply the Translog Stochastic Frontier production model (SFA) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to estimate efficiencies over time and the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth rate for Bangladeshi rice crops (Aus, Aman and Boro) throughout the most recent data available comprising the period 1989-2008. Results indicate that technical efficiency was observed as higher for Boro among the three types of rice, but the overall technical efficiency of rice production was found around 50%. Although positive changes exist in TFP for the sample analyzed, the average growth rate of TFP for rice production was estimated at almost the same levels for both Translog SFA with half normal distribution and DEA. Estimated TFP from SFA is forecasted with ARIMA (2, 0, 0) model. ARIMA (1, 0, 0) model is used to forecast TFP of Aman from DEA estimation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23077500 PMCID: PMC3471888 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Maximum-Likelihood Estimates of the Translog Stochastic Frontier Model with Time-varying Inefficiency Effects for Rice production of Bangladesh.
| Variable | Half normal | Truncated normal | ||||
| Coefficient | std-error | t-ratio | Coefficient | std-error | t-ratio | |
| Intercept | 9.165 | 13.279 | 1.690 | 39.226 | 1.040 | 37.716 |
| Area | 0.429 | 2.393 | −2.793 | 5.796 | 0.751 | −7.717 |
| Seed | 0.530 | 1.195 | 1.444 | 2.552 | 0.952 | 2.6796 |
| Fertilizer | −1.252 | 1.643 | −2.062 | −4.968 | 0.357 | −13.905 |
| Time | −0.1688 | 0.146 | 0.1580 | −0.352 | 0.135 | −2.598 |
| Area*Seed | 0.004 | 0.004 | 1.960 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.6075 |
| Area*Fertilizer | −0.002 | 0.003 | −0.7489 | −0.003 | 0.007 | −0.3765 |
| Seed*Fertilizer | −0.004 | 0.003 | −1.623 | −0.005 | 0.004 | −1.2795 |
| Time*Area | −0.0013 | 0.013 | −0.0119 | −0.035 | 0.0127 | −2.766 |
| Time*Seed | 0.0000007 | 0.006 | 0.1202 | 0.0087 | 0.0077 | 1.124 |
| Time*Fertilizer | 0.0036 | 0.021 | 1.713 | 0.0732 | 0.0151 | 4.863 |
| Aera2
| 0.024 | 0.034 | 0.6996 | 0.028 | 0.0429 | 0.649 |
| Seed2
| 0.209 | 0.3 | 1.6973 | 0.875 | 0.120 | 7.278 |
| Fertilizer2
| −0.0914 | 0.133 | −1.6866 | −0.344 | 0.095 | −3.611 |
| Time2
| −0.0000003 | 0.001 | −1.4481 | −0.0013 | 0.001 | −1.210 |
| sigma-squared (σ2) | 0.3025 | 0.243 | 1.244 | 0.0271 | 0.005 | 5.485 |
| gamma( | 0.9963 | 0.003099 | 321.46 | 0.9551 | 0.017 | 55.757 |
| Mu( | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.322 | 0.093 | 3.469 |
| Eta ( | 0.0146 | 0.01 | 1.456 | 0.0207 | 0.006 | 3.292 |
| log likelihood function = 107.245 | log likelihood function = 100.518 | |||||
indicates significance level at 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent respectively.
Year-wise Technical Efficiency of Rice in Bangladesh.
| Year | Technical Efficiency (Half normal) | Technical Efficiency (Truncated normal) | ||||||
| Aus | Aman | Boro | Overall | Aus | Aman | Boro | Overall | |
| 1989 | 0.462 | 0.372 | 0.98 | 0.605 | 0.4 | 0.304 | 0.845 | 0.516 |
| 1990 | 0.467 | 0.378 | 0.981 | 0.608 | 0.407 | 0.311 | 0.848 | 0.522 |
| 1991 | 0.472 | 0.383 | 0.981 | 0.612 | 0.415 | 0.319 | 0.851 | 0.528 |
| 1992 | 0.477 | 0.388 | 0.981 | 0.616 | 0.422 | 0.326 | 0.854 | 0.534 |
| 1993 | 0.482 | 0.394 | 0.981 | 0.619 | 0.43 | 0.334 | 0.857 | 0.540 |
| 1994 | 0.488 | 0.399 | 0.982 | 0.623 | 0.437 | 0.341 | 0.86 | 0.546 |
| 1995 | 0.493 | 0.405 | 0.982 | 0.626 | 0.445 | 0.349 | 0.862 | 0.552 |
| 1996 | 0.498 | 0.41 | 0.982 | 0.63 | 0.452 | 0.357 | 0.865 | 0.558 |
| 1997 | 0.503 | 0.415 | 0.982 | 0.633 | 0.46 | 0.364 | 0.867 | 0.564 |
| 1998 | 0.508 | 0.42 | 0.983 | 0.637 | 0.467 | 0.372 | 0.87 | 0.570 |
| 1999 | 0.513 | 0.426 | 0.983 | 0.641 | 0.475 | 0.38 | 0.872 | 0.575 |
| 2000 | 0.518 | 0.431 | 0.983 | 0.644 | 0.482 | 0.387 | 0.875 | 0.581 |
| 2001 | 0.523 | 0.436 | 0.983 | 0.648 | 0.489 | 0.395 | 0.877 | 0.587 |
| 2002 | 0.528 | 0.442 | 0.984 | 0.651 | 0.496 | 0.402 | 0.88 | 0.593 |
| 2003 | 0.533 | 0.447 | 0.984 | 0.654 | 0.504 | 0.41 | 0.882 | 0.598 |
| 2004 | 0.537 | 0.452 | 0.984 | 0.658 | 0.511 | 0.418 | 0.884 | 0.604 |
| 2005 | 0.542 | 0.457 | 0.984 | 0.661 | 0.518 | 0.425 | 0.886 | 0.610 |
| 2006 | 0.547 | 0.463 | 0.985 | 0.665 | 0.525 | 0.433 | 0.889 | 0.615 |
| 2007 | 0.552 | 0.468 | 0.985 | 0.668 | 0.532 | 0.44 | 0.891 | 0.621 |
| 2008 | 0.557 | 0.473 | 0.985 | 0.672 | 0.539 | 0.448 | 0.893 | 0.626 |
| Average | 0.51 | 0.423 | 0.983 | 0.639 | 0.470 | 0.376 | .870 | 0.572 |
Indirect Indicator of Plausibility of TFP Growth Results of Overall Rice Production.
| SFA (Half normal) | SFA (Truncated normal) | DEA | |
| Average growth rate | 3.90% | 2.30% | 2.95% |
| Maximum growth rate | 4.67% | 4.27% | 27.53% |
| Minimum growth rate | 3.1% | 0.57% | −18.73% |
| Number of years recording negative TFP | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Figure 1Efficiency change and Technical change of Aus, Aman and Boro in Bangladesh (1990–2008).
Growth Rate of TFP of Rice Production in Bangladesh by SFA and DEA.
| Year | SFA (Half normal) | SFA (Truncated normal) | DEA | ||||||
| Aus | Aman | Boro | Aus | Aman | Boro | Aus | Aman | Boro | |
| 1990 | 4.2 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 2.0 | −3.4 | 3.1 | 19.6 | 4.5 | −18.3 |
| 1991 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 2.1 | −3.1 | 3.4 | 38.7 | 27.0 | 4.6 |
| 1992 | 4.6 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 2.4 | −2.7 | 4.2 | −3.4 | −7.6 | −9.5 |
| 1993 | 4.4 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.0 | −2.6 | 3.6 | −16.9 | −6.1 | 9.2 |
| 1994 | 4.3 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 1.8 | −2.2 | 2.9 | −7.0 | 9.9 | −7.7 |
| 1995 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.4 | −1.1 | 3.7 | −25.2 | −28.7 | −1.6 |
| 1996 | 4.9 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 2.8 | −0.4 | 4.1 | 14.7 | 9.5 | −10.8 |
| 1997 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.6 | −0.8 | 3.5 | −9.1 | −7.4 | 3.2 |
| 1998 | 4.6 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 2.6 | −1.1 | 2.9 | −3.4 | −28.2 | 8.3 |
| 1999 | 5.0 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 3.1 | −0.5 | 3.5 | 27.6 | 24.3 | 7.9 |
| 2000 | 5.4 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.6 | −0.4 | 4.2 | 9.7 | 49.6 | 23.3 |
| 2001 | 5.5 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.7 | −0.4 | 4.5 | −15.4 | −16.4 | −24.4 |
| 2002 | 5.6 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 4 | -0.2 | 4.5 | 9.9 | −13.6 | −5.6 |
| 2003 | 5.6 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 4.3 | −0.1 | 4.4 | 29.2 | 3.6 | 17.6 |
| 2004 | 5.9 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 0.4 | 4.9 | −54.2 | 2.0 | −3.3 |
| 2005 | 6.1 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 5.7 | 0.7 | 5.3 | 74.0 | −10.1 | 17.9 |
| 2006 | 6.1 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 5.7 | 0.7 | 5.2 | 19.6 | 4.5 | −18.3 |
| 2007 | 6.3 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 5.3 | 38.7 | 27.0 | 4.6 |
| 2008 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 3.4 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 4.7 | −3.4 | −7.6 | −9.1 |
| Average | 5.2 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.5 | −0.8 | 4.1 | 7.6 | 1.9 | −0.6 |
Figure 2Correlogram of ACF for Identification of ARIMA Model.
Figure 3Correlogram of PACF for Identification of ARIMA Model.
Estimated Parameters for ARIMA Model to Forecast TFP.
| Aus | Aman | Boro | ||||
| Parameter | estimate | Parameter | estimate | Parameter | estimate | |
| Half normal SFA | AR1 | 1.235 | AR1 | 1.243 | AR1 | 0.971 |
| AR2 | −0.297 | AR2 | −0.285 | AR2 | −0.227 | |
| Constant | 1.051 | Constant | 1.031 | Constant | 1.032 | |
| Truncated normal SFA | AR1 | 1.32 | AR1 | 1.372 | AR1 | 0.958 |
| AR2 | −0.391 | AR2 | −0.407 | AR2 | −0.255 | |
| Constant | 1.034 | Constant | 0.991 | Constant | 1.04 | |
| DEA | - | - | AR1 | −0.117 | - | - |
| - | - | Constant | 1.019 | - | - | |
indicates significance level at 5 percent and 10 percent respectively.