Understanding Productivity Changes in Public Universities: Evidence from Spain

This paper describes the dynamic changes in productivity in Spanish public universities (SPU) in the period 1994 to 2008. The Malmquist index is used to illustrate the contribution of efficiency and technological change to changes in the productivity of university activities. The results indicate that annual productivity growth is attributable more to efficiency improvements than technological progress. Gains in scale efficiency appear to play only a minor role in productivity gains. The fact that technical efficiency contributes more than technological progress suggests that most universities are not operating close to the best-practice frontier.Garcia Aracil, A. (2013). Understanding Productivity Changes in Public Universities: Evidence from Spain. Research Evaluation. 22(5):351-368. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt009S351368225Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2012). Evaluating the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-related output efficiency. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 2-14. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvr001Agasisti, T., & Pérez-Esparrells, C. (2009). Comparing efficiency in a cross-country perspective: the case of Italian and Spanish state universities. Higher Education, 59(1), 85-103. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9235-8ARCELUS‡, F. J., & Coleman‡§, D. F. (1997). An efficiency review of university departments. International Journal of Systems Science, 28(7), 721-729. doi:10.1080/00207729708929431Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the Comparative Efficiency of Higher Education Institutions in the UK by the Means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 5(2), 117-134. doi:10.1080/09645299700000011Attewell, P., Heil, S., & Reisel, L. (2012). What Is Academic Momentum? And Does It Matter? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(1), 27-44. doi:10.3102/0162373711421958Balk, B. M. (1993). Malmquist Productivity Indexes and Fisher Ideal Indexes: Comment. The Economic Journal, 103(418), 680. doi:10.2307/2234540Beasley, J. E. (1990). Comparing university departments. Omega, 18(2), 171-183. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(90)90064-gBeasley, J. E. (1995). Determining Teaching and Research Efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), 441-452. doi:10.1057/jors.1995.63Bessent, A. M., & Bessent, E. W. (1980). Determining the Comparative Efficiency of Schools through Data Envelopment Analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 57-75. doi:10.1177/0013161x8001600207Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2006). Advanced indicators of productivity of universitiesAn application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data. Scientometrics, 66(2), 389-410. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0028-xBonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., Lepori, B., & Slipersæter, S. (2007). Indicators on individual higher education institutions: addressing data problems and comparability issues. Research Evaluation, 16(2), 66-78. doi:10.3152/095820207x218141Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., & Diewert, W. E. (1982). The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity. Econometrica, 50(6), 1393. doi:10.2307/1913388Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8Coelli, T., & Perelman, S. (1999). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric distance functions: With application to European railways. European Journal of Operational Research, 117(2), 326-339. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00271-9Cohn, E., Rhine, S. L. W., & Santos, M. C. (1989). Institutions of Higher Education as Multi-Product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(2), 284. doi:10.2307/1926974COSTAS, R., & BORDONS, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193-203. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001De Groot, H., McMahon, W. W., & Volkwein, J. F. (1991). The Cost Structure of American Research Universities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3), 424. doi:10.2307/2109566F�re, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1992). Indirect productivity measurement. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 2(4), 283-298. doi:10.1007/bf00156471Farrell, M. J. (1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253. doi:10.2307/2343100Flegg, A. T., & Allen, D. O. (2007). Does Expansion Cause Congestion? The Case of the Older British Universities, 1994–2004. Education Economics, 15(1), 75-102. doi:10.1080/09645290601133928FLEGG, A. T., ALLEN, D. O., FIELD, K., & THURLOW, T. W. (2004). Measuring the efficiency of British universities: a multi‐period data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 12(3), 231-249. doi:10.1080/0904529042000258590García-Aracil, A., & Palomares-Montero, D. (2009). Examining benchmark indicator systems for the evaluation of higher education institutions. Higher Education, 60(2), 217-234. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9296-8García-Aracil, A., & Palomares-Montero, D. (2012). Indicadores para la evaluación de las instituciones universitarias: validación a través del método Delphi. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 35(1), 119-144. doi:10.3989/redc.2012.1.863Giménez, V. M., & Martínez, J. L. (2006). Cost efficiency in the university: A departmental evaluation model. Economics of Education Review, 25(5), 543-553. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.05.006Glass, J. C., McKillop, D. G., & O’Rourke, G. (1998). Journal of Productivity Analysis, 10(2), 153-175. doi:10.1023/a:1018607223276Grifell-Tatjé, E., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1999). A generalized Malmquist productivity index. Top, 7(1), 81-101. doi:10.1007/bf02564713Grosskopf, S., Margaritis, D., & Valdmanis, V. (1995). Estimating output substitutability of hospital services: A distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 80(3), 575-587. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)00138-3Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain. Research Policy, 32(1), 123-142. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00008-2Johnes, G. (1988). Determinants of research output in economics departments in British universities. Research Policy, 17(3), 171-178. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(88)90041-8JOHNES, J. (2008). EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY CHANGE IN THE ENGLISH HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR FROM 1996/97 TO 2004/5*. Manchester School, 76(6), 653-674. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.2008.01087.xJohnes, G., & Schwarzenberger, A. (2011). Differences in cost structure and the evaluation of efficiency: the case of German universities. Education Economics, 19(5), 487-499. doi:10.1080/09645291003726442JOHNES, J., & YU, L. (2008). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions using data envelopment analysis. China Economic Review, 19(4), 679-696. doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2008.08.004Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (1999). Economies of scale and scope in higher education: a case of comprehensive universities. Economics of Education Review, 18(2), 269-277. doi:10.1016/s0272-7757(98)00035-1Kortelainen, M. (2008). Dynamic environmental performance analysis: A Malmquist index approach. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 701-715. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.001Laudel, G. (2005). Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 27-34. doi:10.3152/147154405781776300Lovell, C. A. K. (2003). Journal of Productivity Analysis, 20(3), 437-458. doi:10.1023/a:1027312102834Lucas, S. R., & Beresford, L. (2010). Naming and Classifying: Theory, Evidence, and Equity in Education. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 25-84. doi:10.3102/0091732x09353578Madden, G., Savage, S., & Kemp, S. (1997). Measuring Public Sector Efficiency: A Study of Economics Departments at Australian Universities. Education Economics, 5(2), 153-168. doi:10.1080/09645299700000013Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2001). Total factor productivity and efficiency in Australian colleges of advanced education. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 384-393. doi:10.1108/eum0000000005497Malmquist, S. (1953). Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica, 4(2), 209-242. doi:10.1007/bf03006863Mamun, S. A. K. (2012). Stochastic estimation of cost frontier: evidence from Bangladesh. Education Economics, 20(2), 211-227. doi:10.1080/09645292.2010.494836Maniadakis, N., & Thanassoulis, E. (2004). A cost Malmquist productivity index. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(2), 396-409. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00177-2Molinero, C. M. (1996). On the Joint Determination of Efficiencies in a Data Envelopment Analysis Context. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(10), 1273-1279. doi:10.1057/jors.1996.154Molinero, C. M., & Tsai, P. F. (1997). Some mathematical properties of a DEA model for the joint determination of efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(1), 51-56. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600327McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to Account: Analyzing the Origins and Spread of State Performance-Accountability Policies for Higher Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24. doi:10.3102/01623737028001001Monk, D. H. (1992). Education Productivity Research: An Update and Assessment of Its Role in Education Finance Reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 307-332. doi:10.3102/01623737014004307Nishimizu, M., & Page, J. M. (1982). Total Factor Productivity Growth, Technological Progress and Technical Efficiency Change: Dimensions of Productivity Change in Yugoslavia, 1965-78. The Economic Journal, 92(368), 920. doi:10.2307/2232675Rodrı́guez-Álvarez, A., Fernández-Blanco, V., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2004). Allocative inefficiency and its cost: International Journal of Production Economics, 92(2), 99-111. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.012Salerno, C. (2006). Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Improve Estimates of Higher Education Institution’s Per‐student Education Costs1. Education Economics, 14(3), 281-295. doi:10.1080/09645290600777485Sarafoglou, N., & Haynes, K. E. (1996). University productivity in Sweden: a demonstration and explanatory analysis for economics and business programs. The Annals of Regional Science, 30(3), 285-304. doi:10.1007/bf01580523Schmoch, U., Schubert, T., Jansen, D., Heidler, R., & von Görtz, R. (2010). How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: a balanced approach. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 2-18. doi:10.3152/095820210x492477New, B. (1997). The rationing debate: Defining a package of healthcare services the NHS is responsible for The case for. BMJ, 314(7079), 498-498. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic departments efficiency via DEA. Computers & Operations Research, 21(5), 543-556. doi:10.1016/0305-0548(94)90103-1Tomkins, C., & Green, R. (1988). AN EXPERIMENT IN THE USE OF DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS FOR EVALUATING THE EFFICIENCY OF UK UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS OF ACCOUNTING. Financial Accountability and Management, 4(2), 147-164. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.xUri, N. D. (2003). Technical efficiency in telecommunications in the United States and the impact of incentive regulation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 27(1), 53-67. doi:10.1016/s0307-904x(02)00098-7Uri, N. D. (2003). The adoption of incentive regulation and its effect on technical efficiency in telecommunications in the United States. International Journal of Production Economics, 86(1), 21-34. doi:10.1016/s0925-5273(03)00002-1Vidal, J. (2003). Quality Assurance, Legal Reforms and the European Higher Education Area in Spain. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 301-313. doi:10.1111/1467-3435.00149Williams, J. D., & Kerckhoff, A. C. (1995). The Challenge of Developing New Educational Indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 113-131. doi:10.3102/01623737017001113Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285-298. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.01

Ab initio calculations for bromine adlayers on the Ag(100) and Au(100) surfaces: the c(2x2) structure

Ab initio total-energy density-functional methods with supercell models have been employed to calculate the c(2x2) structure of the Br-adsorbed Ag(100) and Au(100) surfaces. The atomic geometries of the surfaces and the preferred bonding sites of the bromine have been determined. The bonding character of bromine with the substrates has also been studied by analyzing the electronic density of states and the charge transfer. The calculations show that while the four-fold hollow-site configuration is more stable than the two-fold bridge-site topology on the Ag(100) surface, bromine prefers the bridge site on the Au(100) surface. The one-fold on-top configuration is the least stable configuration on both surfaces. It is also observed that the second layer of the Ag substrate undergoes a small buckling as a consequence of the adsorption of Br. Our results provide a theoretical explanation for the experimental observations that the adsorption of bromine on the Ag(100) and Au(100) surfaces results in different bonding configurations.Comment: 10 pages, 4 figure, 5 tables, Phys. Rev. B, in pres

Multisite Comparison of CD4 and CD8 T-Lymphocyte Counting by Single- versus Multiple-Platform Methodologies: Evaluation of Beckman Coulter Flow-Count Fluorospheres and the tetraONE System

New analytic methods that permit absolute CD4 and CD8 T-cell determinations to be performed entirely on the flow cytometer have the potential for improving assay precision and accuracy. In a multisite trial, we compared two different single-platform assay methods with a predicate two-color assay in which the absolute lymphocyte count was derived by conventional hematology. A two-color method employing lymphocyte light scatter gating and Beckman Coulter Flow-Count fluorospheres for absolute counting produced within-laboratory precision equivalent to that of the two-color predicate method, as measured by coefficient of variation of replicate measurements. The fully automated Beckman Coulter tetraONE System four-color assay employing CD45 lymphocyte gating, automated analysis, and absolute counting by fluorospheres resulted in a small but significant improvement in the within-laboratory precision of CD4 and CD8 cell counts and percentages suggesting that the CD45 lymphocyte gating and automated analysis might have contributed to the improved performance. Both the two-color method employing Flow-Count fluorospheres and the four-color tetraONE System provided significant and substantial improvements in between-laboratory precision of absolute counts. In some laboratories, absolute counts obtained by the single-platform methods showed small but consistent differences relative to the predicate method. Comparison of each laboratory's absolute counts with the five-laboratory median value suggested that these differences resulted from a bias in the absolute lymphocyte count obtained from the hematology instrument in some laboratories. These results demonstrate the potential for single-platform assay methods to improve within-laboratory and between-laboratory precision of CD4 and CD8 T-cell determinations compared with conventional assay methods

Evaluation of TruCount Absolute-Count Tubes for Determining CD4 and CD8 Cell Numbers in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Adults

A single-platform technology that uses an internal bead standard and three-color flow cytometry to determine CD4 and CD8 absolute counts was evaluated for reproducibility and agreement. Values obtained using TruCount absolute-count tubes were compared to those obtained using a two-color predicate methodology. Sixty specimens from human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected donors were shipped to five laboratories. Each site also analyzed replicates of 14 human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected local specimens at 6 h and again at 24 h. The interlaboratory variability was significantly less with TruCount (median difference in percent coefficient of variation [%CV] between the two methods was −8% and −3% for CD4 and CD8, respectively) than with the predicate method. Intralaboratory variability was smaller, with a median difference in %CV of −1% for both CD4 and CD8 with 6-h samples and −2% and −3% for CD4 and CD8, respectively, with 24-h samples. Use of TruCount for shipped samples resulted in a median CD4 count change of 7 cells (50th estimated percentile) when all laboratories and CD4 strata were combined. For on-site samples, the median CD4 count change was 10 CD4 cells for 6-h samples and 2 CD4 cells for 24-h samples. Individual site biases occurred in both directions and cancelled each other when the data were combined for all laboratories. Thus, the combined data showed a smaller change in median CD4 count than what may have occurred at an individual site. In summary, the use of TruCount decreased both the inter- and intralaboratory variability in determining absolute CD4 and CD8 counts

An Application of Mathematical Programming to Assess Productivity in the Houston Independent School District

A school may be viewed as an enterprise in which the professional staff provide the operating conditions for converting quantifiable resources or inputs into pupil learning (outputs). The resources are determined by budgets, teacher assignments, and student assignments while learning is determined by various outputs scored according to standardized tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Following the work of Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, E. Rhodes. 1981. Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Management Sci. 27 (6) 668--697.), we use a ratio definition of efficiency that takes account of all outputs and inputs without requiring a priori specification of weights. Instead a series of mathematical programs are applied to determine "virtual multipliers" from actual data. The multipliers produce values that can be regarded as the "most favorable weights" for each school being evaluated. If the resulting optimum virtual multipliers for a given school yield an efficiency ratio of one, then that school is said to be efficient. If the ratio is less than one then that school is said to be inefficient relative to the other schools in the analysis. The ratio is also accorded operational significance---it is not merely an index number---so that the resulting values and the associated virtual multipliers make it possible to locate where improvements may be made along with their relative magnitudes. This analysis was applied to 167 elementary schools in the Houston Independent School District. Of these schools, 78 were found to be inefficiently utilizing their resources as compared to the 89 efficient schools. Based on this pilot study, an Educational Productivity Council has been formed at the University of Texas at Austin to provide an annual analysis for all of its member schools. At present 285 Texas schools in 22 districts are scheduled for participation in the annual analysis as described in this investigation.mathematical programming: applications, education systems: planning, data envelopment analysis