Alternative treatments of congestion in DEA: A rejoinder to Cooper, Gu, and Li

Laurens Cherchye, Timo Kuosmanen, Thierry Post

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper is a response to Cooper, W.W., B. Gu, and S. Li: 'Comparisons and Evaluations of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Congestion in DEA', European Journal of Operational Research (this issue), who claim that the standard FGL procedure by Färe, Grosskopf, and Lovell for dealing with congestion in DEA can (i) fail to identify congestion when it is present, and (ii) identify congestion when it is not present. We clarify the notion of congestion, and its relationship to structural efficiency and free disposability respectively, to point out that the FGL approach was originally intended for measuring structural efficiency, i.e. the influence of congestion on the efficiency of a particular production unit, not for identifying occurrence of congestion in any feasible production vector. Moreover, we point out that the result of Cooper et al. partially arises from ignorance of some key maintained assumptions underlying the FGL approach. Further, we present some counter-examples which demonstrate that the alternative approach advocated by Cooper et al. can equally fail in identification of congestion. Finally, some remarks on the influence of sampling error and errors-in-variables on the two-stage DEA approaches are presented.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)75-80
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Operational Research
Volume132
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 1 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Congestion
efficiency
Alternatives
Disposability
sampling error
Sampling
present
Errors in Variables
evaluation
Operations Research
Counterexample
Unit
Evaluation
Demonstrate

Keywords

  • Congestion
  • Data envelopment analysis (DEA)
  • Free disposability
  • Structural efficiency
  • Two-stage models

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Information Systems and Management
  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Modelling and Simulation
  • Transportation

Cite this

Alternative treatments of congestion in DEA : A rejoinder to Cooper, Gu, and Li. / Cherchye, Laurens; Kuosmanen, Timo; Post, Thierry.

In: European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 132, No. 1, 01.07.2001, p. 75-80.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{45ff5b2df60640148593a15f01510834,
title = "Alternative treatments of congestion in DEA: A rejoinder to Cooper, Gu, and Li",
abstract = "This paper is a response to Cooper, W.W., B. Gu, and S. Li: 'Comparisons and Evaluations of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Congestion in DEA', European Journal of Operational Research (this issue), who claim that the standard FGL procedure by F{\"a}re, Grosskopf, and Lovell for dealing with congestion in DEA can (i) fail to identify congestion when it is present, and (ii) identify congestion when it is not present. We clarify the notion of congestion, and its relationship to structural efficiency and free disposability respectively, to point out that the FGL approach was originally intended for measuring structural efficiency, i.e. the influence of congestion on the efficiency of a particular production unit, not for identifying occurrence of congestion in any feasible production vector. Moreover, we point out that the result of Cooper et al. partially arises from ignorance of some key maintained assumptions underlying the FGL approach. Further, we present some counter-examples which demonstrate that the alternative approach advocated by Cooper et al. can equally fail in identification of congestion. Finally, some remarks on the influence of sampling error and errors-in-variables on the two-stage DEA approaches are presented.",
keywords = "Congestion, Data envelopment analysis (DEA), Free disposability, Structural efficiency, Two-stage models",
author = "Laurens Cherchye and Timo Kuosmanen and Thierry Post",
year = "2001",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00182-X",
language = "English",
volume = "132",
pages = "75--80",
journal = "European Journal of Operational Research",
issn = "0377-2217",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alternative treatments of congestion in DEA

T2 - A rejoinder to Cooper, Gu, and Li

AU - Cherchye, Laurens

AU - Kuosmanen, Timo

AU - Post, Thierry

PY - 2001/7/1

Y1 - 2001/7/1

N2 - This paper is a response to Cooper, W.W., B. Gu, and S. Li: 'Comparisons and Evaluations of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Congestion in DEA', European Journal of Operational Research (this issue), who claim that the standard FGL procedure by Färe, Grosskopf, and Lovell for dealing with congestion in DEA can (i) fail to identify congestion when it is present, and (ii) identify congestion when it is not present. We clarify the notion of congestion, and its relationship to structural efficiency and free disposability respectively, to point out that the FGL approach was originally intended for measuring structural efficiency, i.e. the influence of congestion on the efficiency of a particular production unit, not for identifying occurrence of congestion in any feasible production vector. Moreover, we point out that the result of Cooper et al. partially arises from ignorance of some key maintained assumptions underlying the FGL approach. Further, we present some counter-examples which demonstrate that the alternative approach advocated by Cooper et al. can equally fail in identification of congestion. Finally, some remarks on the influence of sampling error and errors-in-variables on the two-stage DEA approaches are presented.

AB - This paper is a response to Cooper, W.W., B. Gu, and S. Li: 'Comparisons and Evaluations of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Congestion in DEA', European Journal of Operational Research (this issue), who claim that the standard FGL procedure by Färe, Grosskopf, and Lovell for dealing with congestion in DEA can (i) fail to identify congestion when it is present, and (ii) identify congestion when it is not present. We clarify the notion of congestion, and its relationship to structural efficiency and free disposability respectively, to point out that the FGL approach was originally intended for measuring structural efficiency, i.e. the influence of congestion on the efficiency of a particular production unit, not for identifying occurrence of congestion in any feasible production vector. Moreover, we point out that the result of Cooper et al. partially arises from ignorance of some key maintained assumptions underlying the FGL approach. Further, we present some counter-examples which demonstrate that the alternative approach advocated by Cooper et al. can equally fail in identification of congestion. Finally, some remarks on the influence of sampling error and errors-in-variables on the two-stage DEA approaches are presented.

KW - Congestion

KW - Data envelopment analysis (DEA)

KW - Free disposability

KW - Structural efficiency

KW - Two-stage models

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035401087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035401087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00182-X

DO - 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00182-X

M3 - Article

VL - 132

SP - 75

EP - 80

JO - European Journal of Operational Research

JF - European Journal of Operational Research

SN - 0377-2217

IS - 1

ER -