Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Productive efficiency

Productive efficiency is an economic concept that describes a state of production in which goods and services are produced using the minimum amount of resources necessary, thereby achieving the lowest possible average cost per unit of output.^[1] This condition ensures that no additional output can be generated without increasing inputs, effectively placing production on the production possibilities frontier (PPF), where the economy maximizes output from given resources without waste.^[2] In microeconomics, productive efficiency is distinct from allocative efficiency, which focuses on producing the optimal mix of goods that aligns with consumer preferences and societal welfare (where marginal social benefit equals marginal social cost).^[3] Productive efficiency is typically achieved by firms operating at the minimum point on their short-run average total cost curve, often through the adoption of appropriate technology, optimal resource allocation, and avoidance of excess inputs.^[1] For instance, in scenarios like overstaffing in service industries, such as multiple employees handling a single task that one could manage, resources are wasted, leading to productive inefficiency.^[1] Within market structures, productive efficiency is most readily attained in the long run under perfect competition, where firms enter and exit freely, driving prices down to marginal cost and eliminating economic profits, thus compelling production at minimum cost.^[4] This efficiency contributes to broader economic goals by freeing up scarce resources for alternative uses, reducing overall scarcity, and enhancing societal welfare.^[1] However, real-world deviations, such as monopolies or regulatory barriers, can hinder it, resulting in higher costs and suboptimal resource utilization.^[4]

Definition and Basics

Core Definition

Productive efficiency occurs when a firm or economy produces the maximum possible output from a given set of inputs, with no resources wasted in the production process.^[4]^[2] This condition implies that production is carried out at the lowest possible cost per unit of output, ensuring that resources are allocated in a way that minimizes excess usage.^[1] Under productive efficiency, all inputs are fully utilized such that any increase in output would necessitate additional inputs, leaving no room for further optimization without expansion.^[2] This state is often represented graphically as operating on the production possibility frontier, where the economy or firm achieves the highest feasible output level given technological constraints.^[4] Deviation from this frontier indicates inefficiency, typically arising from suboptimal resource use or outdated methods. A basic example illustrates this concept in a manufacturing context: consider a factory employing labor and capital—such as workers and machinery—to produce consumer goods. If the factory operates below its production frontier due to inefficient processes, like redundant steps or idle equipment, it fails to achieve productive efficiency, resulting in lower output than possible with the same inputs.^[1] In contrast, optimizing these inputs, for instance by streamlining assembly lines, allows the factory to maximize goods produced without waste.^[5] The prerequisites for productive efficiency center on key economic factors: inputs primarily include labor (human effort) and capital (physical assets like equipment), which are combined to yield outputs in the form of goods or services.^[5] This framework assumes fixed technology and resource availability, focusing solely on the transformation process without considering market pricing or distribution.^[1]

Historical Context

The concept of productive efficiency traces its origins to classical economics, where Adam Smith in his seminal 1776 work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations implicitly addressed it through the division of labor, arguing that specialization enhances productivity by allowing workers to focus on specific tasks, thereby increasing overall output without a formal term for efficiency. Smith's pin factory example illustrated how dividing labor among ten workers could yield 48,000 pins daily, compared to a single worker's mere 20, demonstrating gains in productive capacity. In the late 19th century, neoclassical economists formalized these ideas further; Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics (1890) introduced cost curves to analyze production efficiency, showing how firms minimize costs at optimal output levels where marginal cost equals average cost, laying groundwork for understanding efficient resource use in competitive markets. Building on this, Vilfredo Pareto's Manual of Political Economy (1906) advanced optimality in production by defining conditions where no reallocation of inputs could increase output without reducing it elsewhere, introducing the Pareto efficiency criterion central to later productive efficiency concepts.^[6] Mid-20th-century developments integrated productive efficiency into broader production theory; Paul Samuelson in the 1940s and 1950s, particularly through Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947), linked it to general equilibrium models by deriving production functions and cost minimization under constraints, emphasizing mathematical rigor in assessing efficient input combinations. A key milestone came in the 1950s with linear programming models developed independently by Tjalling Koopmans in Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation (1951) and Leonid Kantorovich in his earlier 1939 work on optimal planning, which provided tools to measure and achieve productive efficiency by solving resource allocation problems.^[7] Their contributions earned the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1975 for advancing the theory of optimum resource allocation.^[7] These advancements also paved the way for tools like the production possibility frontier to visualize efficient production boundaries.^[7]

Theoretical Framework

Production Possibility Frontier

The production possibility frontier (PPF) is a graphical representation of the maximum combinations of two goods or services that an economy can produce using all available resources and technology efficiently. It delineates the boundary between attainable and unattainable output levels under fixed inputs, where points along the curve signify productive efficiency, meaning resources are fully utilized without waste.^[8] This model assumes constant technology and resource availability, focusing on trade-offs inherent in resource allocation.^[9] Graphically, the PPF is typically depicted as a bowed-out curve from the origin, reflecting increasing opportunity costs as production shifts toward one good. The concave shape arises because resources are not equally suited for producing both goods; reallocating them from the good for which they are more productive incurs progressively higher costs in terms of forgone output of the other good. Points inside the frontier represent productive inefficiency, where resources are underutilized or slack exists, while points outside are unattainable with current constraints.^[8] Mathematically, the PPF can be expressed as a function for two goods, X and Y, where Y = f(X), with the curve's negative slope at any point representing the marginal rate of transformation (MRT). The MRT measures the rate at which production of one good must decrease to increase output of the other by one unit, equaling the opportunity cost and increasing along the frontier due to resource heterogeneity.^[10] Achieving points on the PPF implies no resource slack, maximizing output potential and embodying productive efficiency. The frontier shifts outward with technological advancements that improve productivity or increases in resource endowments, expanding attainable combinations; conversely, it shifts inward with resource depletion or technological regression.^[8]

Input-Output Relationships

In microeconomics, the production function encapsulates the technological relationship between inputs and output, defining the maximum feasible output for any given combination of inputs. Productive efficiency at the firm level is attained when the firm operates on this function, producing the highest possible output from specified inputs without waste. A foundational representation is the function Q = f(L, K), where Q denotes output, L represents labor, and K signifies capital; this form highlights how efficient production maximizes Q for fixed L and K.^[11]^[12] Isoquants illustrate combinations of inputs that yield a constant output level, serving as contour lines of the production function. These curves slope downward and are typically convex to the origin due to the diminishing marginal rate of technical substitution (MRTS) between inputs. Productive efficiency involves selecting the input mix along an isoquant that aligns with the firm's cost constraints, specifically at the point of tangency with an isocost line, where the isocost represents all input combinations affordable at a given total expenditure. This tangency ensures the firm achieves the targeted output while adhering to budget limits.^[13]/08%3A_Perfect_Competition/8.02%3A_Production_at_a_Rational_Firm) Cost minimization for a fixed output level occurs when the firm equates the MRTS to the ratio of input prices, formalized as \text{MRTS}_{LK} = \frac{\text{MP}_L}{\text{MP}_K} = \frac{w}{r}, where \text{MP}_L and \text{MP}_K are the marginal products of labor and capital, w is the wage rate, and r is the rental rate of capital. This condition implies that the last dollar spent on each input yields equal additional output, optimizing resource allocation for productive efficiency./08%3A_Perfect_Competition/8.02%3A_Production_at_a_Rational_Firm)^[13] Returns to scale examine how output responds to proportional increases in all inputs, influencing long-run productive efficiency by indicating whether scaling operations enhances or diminishes output per unit input. Constant returns to scale occur when output scales proportionally, as in the Cobb-Douglas function Q = A L^\alpha K^\beta with \alpha + \beta = 1; increasing returns imply output grows more than proportionally, potentially favoring larger firm sizes; decreasing returns suggest the opposite, limiting efficiency gains from expansion. These properties guide firms in determining optimal scale for sustained efficiency.^[12]^[11]

Measurement and Indicators

Key Metrics

Productive efficiency is often assessed through simple output per input ratios, which provide straightforward measures of how effectively specific resources contribute to production. Labor productivity, defined as the ratio of output to the amount of labor input—typically measured as output per worker or per labor hour—serves as a fundamental indicator of efficiency in utilizing human resources.^[14] Similarly, capital productivity measures output per unit of capital input, such as gross domestic product divided by the capital stock, highlighting the efficiency of physical assets like machinery and infrastructure in generating value.^[15] A more comprehensive metric is total factor productivity (TFP), which captures the residual portion of output growth not attributable to increases in measurable inputs like labor and capital, reflecting improvements in technology, organization, and other intangible factors. TFP is commonly calculated using a production function such as the Cobb-Douglas form, where

\text{TFP} = \frac{Y}{L^{\alpha} K^{\beta}}

with Y representing total output, L labor input, K capital input, and \alpha and \beta the output elasticities of labor and capital, respectively, often derived from factor income shares. This measure, originally formalized as the Solow residual, allows economists to isolate efficiency gains beyond input accumulation.^[16] Efficiency ratios further quantify productive efficiency by comparing actual output to the maximum potential output achievable given inputs and best-practice technology, typically expressed on a scale from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates full efficiency on the production frontier.^[17] For instance, a ratio of 0.85 suggests that actual output is 85% of potential, implying room for improvement through better resource utilization. In historical context, TFP growth in developed nations averaged 1-2% annually during the post-World War II period, underscoring its role in sustaining long-term economic expansion.^[18]

Empirical Assessment Techniques

Empirical assessment of productive efficiency relies on econometric and operations research methods that apply real-world data to estimate how closely decision-making units (DMUs), such as firms or industries, approach the efficiency frontier. These techniques transform theoretical concepts into quantifiable measures by analyzing inputs like labor and capital against outputs like value added, often using cross-sectional or time-series data from economic surveys or firm-level records. Key approaches include non-parametric methods that avoid assuming specific functional forms and parametric methods that incorporate statistical noise, enabling researchers to decompose productivity growth and identify inefficiency sources. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a non-parametric technique that evaluates the relative efficiency of multiple DMUs by constructing an empirical production frontier through linear programming. Introduced by Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes, DEA solves optimization problems to determine the maximum output achievable from given inputs or the minimum inputs needed for observed outputs, yielding efficiency scores between 0 and 1, where 1 indicates frontier placement. For instance, in the constant returns to scale model, the efficiency score \theta_k for DMU k is computed as:

\min_{\theta, \lambda} \theta

subject to

\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j x_{rj} \leq \theta x_{rk}, \quad r=1,\dots,m

\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j y_{sj} \geq y_{sk}, \quad s=1,\dots,s

\lambda_j \geq 0, \quad j=1,\dots,n

where x_{rj} and y_{sj} are inputs and outputs for DMU j, and \lambda are intensity variables weighting efficient combinations. This method excels in handling multiple inputs and outputs without requiring price data, making it suitable for sectors like banking or healthcare where data envelopment reveals radial inefficiencies. However, DEA assumes all deviations from the frontier stem from inefficiency, ignoring random errors, which can lead to biased scores in noisy environments. Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) provides a parametric alternative that separates inefficiency from random statistical noise in production data. Developed by Aigner, Lovell, and Schmidt, SFA models output Y for inputs X as Y = f(X) \exp(v - u), where f(X) is the frontier function (often translog or Cobb-Douglas), v is a symmetric random error capturing exogenous shocks (typically normal distribution), and u is a non-negative inefficiency term (half-normal or exponential distribution). Maximum likelihood estimation decomposes the composite error v - u, allowing inefficiency scores E[u|v-u] to be predicted via conditional expectations, such as Jondrow et al.'s formula for half-normal u. Applied to agricultural or manufacturing panels, SFA has shown, for example, that inefficiency accounts for 20-30% of output variance in U.S. electricity firms. Its strength lies in statistical inference and noise separation, but it requires specifying the functional form and distributions, potentially introducing misspecification bias if assumptions fail. Index numbers, such as the Solow residual, offer a simpler decomposition for total factor productivity (TFP) at the aggregate level, attributing output growth to factor accumulation and residual productivity changes. Originating from Solow's growth accounting framework, the residual is calculated as A = Y / (K^\alpha L^{1-\alpha}), where Y is output, K and L are capital and labor, and \alpha is the capital share; growth in A proxies TFP, isolating efficiency and technological progress from input changes. In postwar U.S. data, Solow found TFP explaining about half of output growth, highlighting its role in macroeconomic efficiency tracking. While computationally straightforward and data-light, this method assumes constant returns and perfect competition, limiting its granularity for firm-level analysis. Panel data extensions enhance these techniques for longitudinal efficiency tracking, incorporating time-varying effects like technical change. In DEA, window analysis or Malmquist indices compare efficiency across periods, as in Färe et al.'s application to OECD countries, revealing productivity catch-up in transitioning economies. SFA panels, via models like Battese and Coelli, estimate time-dependent frontiers u_{it} = \mathbf{z}_{it} \delta + w_{it}, capturing firm-specific trends in datasets like the World Bank's enterprise surveys. These applications pros and cons mirror base methods: DEA's flexibility suits heterogeneous panels without noise modeling, but it overlooks unobserved heterogeneity; SFA's parametric rigor enables hypothesis testing on inefficiency drivers, yet demands balanced data and risks overfitting in short panels. Overall, selecting between DEA and SFA depends on data quality and research goals, with hybrids like bootstrapped DEA addressing some statistical limitations.

Technical Efficiency

Technical efficiency refers to the capability of a production unit, such as a firm, to obtain the maximum feasible output from a given bundle of inputs or, equivalently, to minimize the inputs required to achieve a specified output level, assuming no waste in the production process and disregarding the relative prices or costs of inputs.^[19] This concept, introduced by Farrell, emphasizes the physical relationship between inputs and outputs, independent of market conditions.^[20] As a core element of productive efficiency, technical efficiency focuses solely on operational performance, excluding considerations of resource allocation based on prices, which are addressed separately in allocative efficiency.^[21] Radial measurement approaches are commonly employed to quantify technical efficiency, assessing the proportional deviation of an observed production point from the efficient frontier defined by the technology set. In the input-oriented radial measure, efficiency is determined by the maximum factor \theta \leq 1 such that scaling all inputs by \theta reaches the isoquant—the curve representing the minimum input combinations for a given output—allowing for input savings without output loss.^[19] The output-oriented counterpart evaluates the maximum factor \phi \geq 1 by which all outputs can be scaled upward to touch the production function—the maximum output achievable from given inputs—enabling output expansion with unchanged inputs.^[20] These measures assume proportional adjustments across all inputs or outputs, providing a scalar index of efficiency typically ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 denotes full technical efficiency.^[22] A practical illustration of the input-oriented radial measure occurs when a firm employs inputs 20% in excess of the efficient minimum for its output; the technical efficiency score is then calculated as $1 / 1.20 = 0.833 (or 83.3%), indicating the proportion of inputs effectively utilized relative to the frontier.^[22] In empirical models like Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), technical efficiency is estimated distinctly from allocative components, prioritizing the evaluation of input-output transformation processes while abstracting from price-induced choices or substitution elasticities.

Allocative Efficiency

Allocative efficiency refers to the optimal choice of input combinations by a firm, given market prices, such that the marginal product per dollar spent on each input is equalized. This condition ensures that the firm minimizes costs for a given level of output by allocating resources where they yield the highest return relative to their price. Mathematically, for labor (L) and capital (K), allocative efficiency is achieved when the marginal product of labor divided by its wage (w) equals the marginal product of capital divided by its rental rate (r):

\frac{MP_L}{w} = \frac{MP_K}{r}

This equality implies that the firm substitutes inputs until the marginal rate of technical substitution equals the ratio of input prices, avoiding wasteful overuse of any factor.^[23] In the broader context of productive efficiency, allocative efficiency complements technical efficiency, which focuses on maximizing output from given inputs without regard to prices. Overall productive efficiency, often termed economic efficiency, is the product of technical efficiency and allocative efficiency; a firm achieves full productive efficiency only when both components are optimized, allowing it to reach the lowest possible cost frontier.^[24] For example, a manufacturing firm might operate technically efficiently by producing the maximum output with its current inputs but remain allocatively inefficient if it relies excessively on high-wage labor instead of substituting toward lower-cost machinery, thereby incurring higher-than-necessary production costs.^[23] The implications of allocative efficiency extend to cost minimization, as deviations lead to higher expenses without increasing output, reducing the firm's competitiveness. This concept, first formalized in efficiency measurement by Farrell, underscores how price signals guide resource allocation in production decisions.^[25]

Applications and Examples

Firm-Level Analysis

At the firm level, productive efficiency is achieved when a company operates at the optimal scale and employs the most appropriate technology to minimize average costs, corresponding to the point of tangency between the long-run average cost (LRAC) curve and the relevant short-run average cost (SRAC) curve for that output level. This tangency represents the lowest possible cost per unit in the long run, where all inputs are variable, allowing firms to adjust plant size or production processes to eliminate waste and maximize output from given resources. A notable case study involves U.S. manufacturing firms adopting lean production principles following the 2008 financial crisis to enhance efficiency amid economic pressures. Lean methods, originating from the Toyota Production System, focus on eliminating non-value-adding activities such as excess inventory and overproduction, leading to substantial waste reductions through streamlined processes and just-in-time inventory. These improvements not only lowered operational costs but also bolstered firm resilience.^[26] In the airline industry, productive efficiency is often realized through fleet optimization, where carriers standardize aircraft types to reduce maintenance complexity and fuel consumption. Southwest Airlines exemplifies this by maintaining a single-family fleet of Boeing 737 variants, which simplifies training, parts inventory, and turnaround times, contributing to fuel efficiency gains of up to 14% with newer models like the 737 MAX compared to older generations. Conversely, regulated utilities, such as electric power providers, frequently exhibit inefficiencies due to rate-of-return regulation that incentivizes capital overexpenditure rather than cost minimization; studies of utilities in regulated industries show persistent productive inefficiencies, with transient components arising from operational variability and persistent ones from regulatory distortions that hinder benchmarking against best practices.^[27]^[28] Key factors influencing firm-level productive efficiency include management practices and R&D investments, which interact to drive process improvements and innovation. Effective management, such as structured performance monitoring and employee empowerment, can account for up to 30% of productivity variance across firms, while R&D spending enhances efficiency by fostering technological advancements, though its impact is amplified when complemented by complementary practices like ICT adoption. Firms often benchmark against best-practice peers using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), a non-parametric method introduced by Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes in 1978, which constructs an efficiency frontier from input-output data to identify relative performance gaps without assuming a specific functional form.^[29]^[30]

Economy-Wide Implications

Achieving productive efficiency across an entire economy implies operating on the production possibility frontier (PPF), where the maximum possible output is produced from given resources and technology, minimizing waste and enabling the optimal allocation of inputs to outputs. This state ensures that no additional goods or services can be produced without sacrificing others, fostering sustainable expansion in real GDP without proportional increases in factor inputs like labor or capital. In practice, deviations from this frontier, such as through inefficient resource use, result in forgone output and reduced potential growth rates.^[1] Economy-wide productive efficiency directly contributes to long-term economic growth by enhancing total factor productivity (TFP), which measures output growth beyond input expansions. For instance, historical U.S. data from 1889 to 1953 show that productivity advances accounted for approximately 48.5% of real net national product growth, rising to 56.8% after 1919, thereby supporting per capita output increases despite stagnant input growth per person. Similarly, a slowdown in U.S. labor productivity growth from 2.1% annually (1947–2005) to 1.3% (2005–2018) led to a cumulative output loss of $10.9 trillion and $95,000 per worker, exerting downward pressure on wages, profits, and living standards. More recently, as of 2024, U.S. labor productivity growth has rebounded to an average of 1.9% annually over the past five years (2019–2024), potentially signaling broader efficiency gains from digital technologies and AI adoption. These effects underscore how sustained productive efficiency amplifies resource utilization, driving higher income levels and improved societal welfare.^[31]^[32]^[33] Productivity shocks at the economy-wide level propagate through interregional and intersectoral trade linkages, influencing GDP distribution and labor mobility. A notable example is the 31% annual TFP increase in California's Computers and Electronics sector from 2002 to 2007, which boosted national welfare by 0.2% annually while raising California's regional TFP by 0.85%; however, it reduced GDP in competing states like Massachusetts by 0.87% due to trade diversion and migration to high-productivity areas. In contrast, isolated shocks, such as North Dakota's shale oil boom (1.8% annual TFP growth, 2007–2012), had minimal national impact (0.01% welfare gain), highlighting how network effects in supply chains and labor markets amplify or dampen efficiency gains across the economy. Such dynamics emphasize the role of productive efficiency in shaping spatial economic disparities and overall resilience.^[34] Policies promoting economy-wide productive efficiency, such as innovation in technology and education, further reinforce growth by improving resource allocation and TFP. The World Bank identifies productivity—encompassing efficient input-output transformations—as the primary driver of economic development, with components like technological diffusion and workforce skills enabling economies to produce more value from limited resources. Empirical evidence from developing nations supports this, where enhancements in productive capacities correlate with accelerated GDP growth and poverty reduction, though barriers like institutional weaknesses can hinder realization.^[35]

References

[1]
The 5 Es of Economics - Harper College
Productive efficiency can be defined as, or achieved by, producing at a minimum cost. By producing at a minimum cost, FEWER RESOURCES are used and MORE can be ...
[2]
The Production Possibilities Frontier and Social Choices
Productive efficiency means you can't produce more of one good without decreasing another. Allocative efficiency is the mix society most desires, where ...
[3]
HON 222/422 - Topic Three - Efficiency - D
Productive efficiency focuses on how much output can be produced from a given stock of resources. An economic entity (person, firm or country) is said to be ...
[4]
8.4 Efficiency in Perfectly Competitive Markets - UH Pressbooks
Productive efficiency and allocative efficiency are two concepts achieved in the long run in a perfectly competitive market. These are the two reasons why we ...
[5]
[PDF] The Aggregate Production Function - NYU Stern
Jan 9, 2008 · Boeing, for example, owns factories, hires workers, buys electricity and avionics, and uses them to produce aircraft.
[6]
Manual of Political Economy - Vilfredo Pareto - Oxford University Press
Vilfredo Pareto's Manual of Political Economy is a classic study in the history of economic thought for many reasons.
[7]
The Prize in Economics 1975 - Press release - NobelPrize.org
Early in his research, Professor Kantorovich applied the analytical technique of linear programming to demonstrate how economic planning in his country could be ...
[8]
[PDF] I. Production Possibility Frontier - MIT OpenCourseWare
Shifts in Production Possibility Frontier. Two things can cause the PPF to change: 1. Changes in the total amount of resources (inputs) that can be allocated ...
[9]
Production Possibility Frontier & its Relation to Other Costs
Aug 6, 2025 · A production–possibility frontier (PPF) or production possibility curve (PPC) is a curve which shows various combinations of set of two goods which can be ...
[10]
[PDF] Production Possibility Frontier
The production possibility frontier (PPF) is the outer boundary of the PPS. The pro- duction possibility frontier can be described by the following ...
[11]
9.1: The Production Function - Social Sci LibreTexts
Jul 17, 2023 · In economics, a production function relates physical output of a production process to physical inputs or factors of production.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[12]
[PDF] A Theory of Production - Charles W. Cobb, Paul H. Douglas
Oct 3, 2001 · The paper which follows attempts to deal with these questions and to throw some light upon them. But before this is done, it is of course.
[13]
Minimizing Costs – Intermediate Microeconomics
This chapter studies the cost minimization problem for firms: how to most efficiently use inputs to produce output.
[14]
What is Productivity? : Labor productivity - Bureau of Labor Statistics
Labor productivity is a measure of economic performance that compares the amount of output with the amount of labor used to produce that output.
[15]
[PDF] Capital's Contribution to Productivity and the Nature of Competition
Differences in capital pro- ductivity may indicate the result of rational choice given prices and constraints, or the inefficient use of capital. For example, ...
[16]
[PDF] Measuring TFP: The Role of Profits, Adjustment Costs, and Capacity ...
Sep 3, 2021 · According to Robert Solow's famous definition, Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth is the part of output growth that cannot be explained ...
[17]
[PDF] A Nonparametric Production Frontier Approach
As the aggregate output Yjt is a scalar, the Farrell output-based efficiency index is the ratio of actual to potential (production frontier) output, evaluated ...
[18]
[PDF] Total Factor Productivity Growth in Historical Perspective
... TFP in the United States has grown at an average rate of roughly 1.6 percent to 1.8 percent annually, but has experienced several surges occurring in ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[19]
The Measurement of Productive Efficiency - jstor
price and technical efficiency. The former measures a firm's success in choosing an optimal set of inputs, the latter its success in producing maximum output* ...
[20]
[PDF] Productivity interpretations of the Farrell efficiency measures and the ...
4. The Farrell suite of efficiency measures. Farrell (1957) defined two technical measures of efficiency, the input-oriented measure based. on scaling inputs ...
[21]
[PDF] A Unifying Framework for Farrell Efficiency Measurement Coherent ...
Farrell (1957) also introduced the concepts of overall (cost or revenue) efficiency and its decomposition into technical and allocative efficiencies. These ...
[22]
[PDF] AN INTRODUCTION TO EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY ...
Jan 18, 2005 · Farrell (1957) measure of technical efficiency gives the efficiency of firms A and B as 0^470^4 and OB'/OB, respectively. However, it is ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[23]
Chapter 23 - Pure Competition - Online Learning Center
... marginal product per dollar's worth of input is the same for all inputs. allocative efficiency. The apportionment of resources among firms and industries to ...
[24]
[PDF] Measurement of Technical, Allocative, Economic, and Scale ...
Allocative efficiency is calculated as the ratio of the minimum costs required by the DMU to produce a given level of outputs and the actual costs of the DMU ...
[25]
The Measurement of Productive Efficiency - Farrell - 1957
The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. M. J. Farrell,. M. J. Farrell ... PDF. Tools. Export citation · Add to favorites · Track citation. ShareShare. Give ...
[26]
How Lean Helps During Economic Downturns: Lessons from the Past
Jun 9, 2020 · The lean community has plenty of experience with economic downturns, from the genesis of the Toyota Production System (TPS) in the 1950s to the ...Missing: manufacturing | Show results with:manufacturing
[27]
Environmental Sustainability Initiatives | Southwest Airlines
Fleet modernization Modernizing our fleet with more fuel-efficient Boeing 737 aircraft. The 737 MAX 8 is approximately 14% more fuel-efficient than the 737-800 ...By 2050 And A More... · Path To Net Zero · Our Saf Partners
[28]
Persistent and transient productive inefficiency in a regulated industry
The productive efficiency of a firm can be decomposed into two parts, one persistent and one transient. This distinction seems to be appealing for regulators.
[29]
[PDF] Is R&D Enough to Improve Firm Productivity?
These factors include adopting certain management practices, making investments in ICT, and maintaining a skilled workforce. In addition, the article shows that ...
[30]
Measuring the efficiency of decision making units - ScienceDirect.com
A nonlinear (nonconvex) programming model provides a new definition of efficiency for use in evaluating activities of not-for-profit entities participating ...Missing: benchmarking firm
[31]
[PDF] Productivity and Economic Growth
For trend analysis, a few years more or less make little or no difference in the conclusions. Over the period 1889—1953, national productivity increased at an.
[32]
The U.S. productivity slowdown: an economy-wide and industry ...
Over these high-growth years, U.S. labor productivity grew at an average rate of 3.3 percent, which is markedly higher than the cumulative 2.1-percent average ...
[33]
[PDF] The Impact of Regional and Sectoral Productivity Changes on the ...
We study the impact of intersectoral and interregional trade linkages in propagating disaggregated productivity changes to the rest of the economy.
[34]
Productivity as the key to economic growth and development (English)
One of the most important lessons in economics is that productivity is key to economic growth. Productivity is defined in economic theory as the ratio of ...