CONSENSUS & EVALUATION Giuliano Resce, Università di Roma 3.

CONSENSUS & EVALUATION

Giuliano Resce, Università di Roma 3

2

AREA OF RESEARCH

• Public Sector’s Performances• Measures of Well-Being

STEP 1Adapt the method to the peculiarities of the Public Sector and Measures of Well-Being:• Multidimensional nature • Opinions

16 Novembre 2015, Dipartimento di Economia, Università di Roma 3

3

PRESENTATION

• Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis• Restricting weights in DEA • Tools from MultiCriteria Decision Analysis• Case studies


4

PRODUCTIVITY BENCHMARKING


Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes (Management Science, 1981)

5

THE CCR MODELIjIjj

RjRjj

xvxvxvyuyuyu

MaxjEff

......

2211

2211


1......

...

1......

1......

2211

2211

2222121

2222121

1212111

1212111

ININN

RNRNN

II

RR

II

RR

xvxvxvyuyuyu

xvxvxvyuyuyuxvxvxvyuyuyu

subject to

Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (European Journal of Operational Research,1978)

0,...,,,,...,, 2121 IR vvvuuu

Outputs:

Inputs:

Firms:

Weights:

Ryyy ,...,, 21

Ixxx ,...,, 21

Nkj ,...,,

IR vvvuuu ,...,,,,...,, 2121

6

PUBLIC SECTOR COST EFFICIENCY


j

RjRjj

vcyuyuyu

MaxjEff

...2211

1...2211

k

RkRkk

vcyuyuyu Nk ....1

0,,...,, 21 vuuu R

Fare et al. (Journal of Public Economics, 1988)

subject to

7

ASSURANCE REGION METHOD


IjIjj

RjRjj

xvxvxvyuyuyu

MaxjEff

......

2211

2211

subject to

1......

2211

2211

IkIkk

RkRkk

xvxvxvyuyuyu Nk ....1

0,...,,,,...,, 2121 IR vvvuuu

2,12

12,1 UuuL

Thompson et al. (Interface, 1986)

8

VALUE JUDGMENTS IN DEA

Scores of sitesCriterion Site

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7C1 5 7 8 4 9 10 4C2 10 10 7 8 4 2 7C3 3 3 5 3 4 10 7Sum 18 20 20 15 17 22 18


Y. Takamura, K. Tone (Socio-Economic Planning Sciences , 2003)

9


Weights on criteria of five evaluatorsEvaluators Criterion

C1 C2 C3 SumEvaluator 1 2 3 5 10Evaluator 2 4 4 2 10Evaluator 3 5 3 2 10Evaluator 4 3 4 3 10Evaluator 5 5 4 1 10Average 3,8 3,6 2,6



10




Weights ratios of five evaluators

u1/u2 u2/u3 u1/u3

Evaluator 1 0,667 0,6 0,4

Evaluator 2 1 2 2

Evaluator 3 1,667 1,5 2,5

Evaluator 4 0,75 1,3337 1

Evaluator 5 1,25 4 5

11


1332211 kkk SuSuSu


03,2,1 uuu

jjj SuSuSu 332211

Nk ....1

subject to

40,6

50,4

1,66670,6667

3

2

3

1

2

1

uuuuuu


Max

12

MODIFICATIONS

• Different bounds for different DMU• Voting sistems


13

CASE STUDY 1

European Health for All database (HFA-DB)


World Health Organization, 2015

HFA-DB provides a selection of core health statistics covering basic demographics, health status, health determinants and risk factors, and health-care resources, utilization and expenditure in the 53 countries in the WHO European Region.

14

CASE STUDY 2


OECD, 2015

15

WHAT MATTERS MOST TOPEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD?

More than 80 000 users of the Better Life Index around the world have shared their views on what makes for a better life. Explore the interactive map and find out what well being ‐topics are rated highest and where. Of course this is a small share of the world’s population – so why not share your vision of a better life and helpus reach 100 000 (or even more) by the end of 2015.16 Novembre 2015, Dipartimento di Economia, Università di Roma 3

OECD, 2015

16

REFERENCESCharnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision

making units, European Journal of Operational Research;2:429–44.Fare R, Grosskopf S. and Lovell C.A.K. (1988) An indirect approach to the

evaluation of producer performance Journal of Public Economics 37, 71-89.

OECD (2015) How’s life?, Paris.Thompson RG, Singleton Jr. FD, Thrall RM, Smith BA. (1986) Comparative site

evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas, Interface;16:35–49.

Takamura Y, and Tone K. (2003) A comparative site evaluation study for relocating Japanese government agencies out of Tokyo, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 37, pp. 85–102

World Health Organization (2015) European Health for All database


CONSENSUS & EVALUATION Giuliano Resce, Università di Roma 3.

Documents

Transcript of CONSENSUS & EVALUATION Giuliano Resce, Università di Roma 3.