Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Firm Size and Productivity. Evidence From The Electricity Distribution Industry in Brazil
Firm Size and Productivity. Evidence From The Electricity Distribution Industry in Brazil
Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
lisis Econo
mico Aplicado y EIT, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Departmento de Ana
lisis Econo
mico, Facultad de Ciencias Econo
micas y Empresariales, Campus de Guajara, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, S/C de Tenerife, Espan
a, Spain
Departamento de Ana
c
IE-UFRJ (Instituto de Economia-Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro), Brazil
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 12 November 2009
Accepted 1 November 2010
Available online 9 December 2010
In this paper we apply Stochastic Frontier Analysis through a distance function to investigate the impact of
rm size on productivity development in electricity distribution. We use a sample of seventeen Brazilian
rms from 1998 to 2005 and decompose productivity into technical efciency, scale efciency and
technical change. Moreover, a further step is to decompose the technical change measurement into
several components. The results indicate that rm size is important for industrys productivity, and
therefore a key aspect to consider when making decisions that affect the market structure in the
electricity distribution industry.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Brazil electricity distribution
Firm size
Productivity decomposition. L94
1. Introduction
Over the last three decades, many countries have introduced
reforms to transform the organization and regulation of electricity
markets. One of the most important features of these reforms has
been the unbundling of different industry segments. The main
purpose of these reforms is to introduce competition into electricity generation and retail markets, and improve the efciency of
natural monopoly transmission and distribution stages. Whenever
possible, the reforms also broke up the national distribution
companies horizontally into several regional monopolies. The
regulatory reforms for monopoly activities have tended to move
away from the traditional rate of return regulation towards
incentive-based regulation models. In most cases, these changes
were associated with the creation of new regulatory agencies that
were responsible for monitoring the performance of public and
private monopolies.
Together with structural reforms in the industry, there has also
been a shift toward the privatization of public enterprises in many
countries. The privatization processes have also led to mergers
between companies trying to improve industrys performance.1
Some papers focus on the impact of rm size on the performance of
electricity distribution. As Bagdadioglu et al. (2007) note, this issue
can be treated from two points of view. The rst tries to analyse
how operational scale affects cost savings and the second tests the
potential production efciency gains from mergers.
In the rst alternative, a common nding of many studies
performed in different countries is the evidence of considerable
economies of density2 but insignicant or weak economies of scale
in the electricity distribution industry. There is evidence of
signicant scale effects with respect to output and number of
customers at quite small levels, though unit costs do not change
across a wide range. Moreover, for large rms, an increase in the
service area does not generate any signicant decrease in average
cost.3
As concerns the study of efciency resulting from mergers,
empirical studies are not conclusive. For example, Hattori et al.
(2005) on electricity distribution in the UK and Japan and Domah
and Pollitt (2001) in the UK have found efciency gains due to
mergers and privatization processes. The results by Kwoka and
Pollitt (2007) for the USA from 1994 to 2003 indicate that
electricity mergers are not consistent with improved cost performance. Bagdadioglu et al. (2007) compares the actual efciency
levels of distribution companies with the proposed combined
companies in Turkey for the period 19992003. The results indicate
potential for considerable efciency gains from the proposed
mergers.
In the 1990s, pro-market reforms were implemented in the
Brazilian Electricity Industry (BEI), the objective being to promote
2
This concept explains the evolution of average costs when production is
increased while some of the features of the product are maintained constant, such as
the size of the service area or the number of customers.
3
For a complete survey see Ramos-Real (2005) and Kwoka (2005).
2. Methodology
In economics, productivity is generally dened as the ratio of
what is produced versus what is required to produce it. In the real
world, where rms usually use multiple inputs to obtain multiple
outputs, the measurement of productivity must take this into
account using a Total Factor Productivity (TFP) measurement. TFP
growth refers to the change in productivity over time.
There are several approaches for measuring productivity. The
traditional approach does not take into account company inefciency,4 meaning it is inadequate for considering the contribution
of efciency changes on productivity changes. Hence our use of the
frontier approach, which lets us estimate a best practice frontier
against which each rm is to be compared.
The best practice frontier may be estimated using either nonparametric5 or parametric6 techniques, but in both cases some
assumptions about the technology must be made. Both approaches
have their merits and drawbacks.7 In order to measure and decompose
the productivity development of Brazilian distribution rms, we have
decided to estimate the best frontier by estimating a distance function.
2.1. Measuring and decomposing TFP using the Malmquist TFP index
827
N
1
X
ai ln xit
M X
M
1X
b ln yit ln yjt
2 i j ij
lnxnit a0
4
Within this group there are two different techniques for obtaining TFP: nonparametric (index number) or parametric (average function).
5
For example, using DEA or Free Disposable Hull (FDH).
6
This could be either through linear programming or econometric techniques.
The econometric group may also be subdivided into two: deterministic and
stochastic frontiers.
7
Although several studies compare both methods, the literature is not clear on
which approach is superior. A detailed analysis of the relative merits of all of these
techniques is beyond the scope of this article, but a good summary can be found in
et al. (1997).
Fare
8
See Kumbhakar and Heshmati (1996), Fuentes et al. (2001), Kim and Han
(2001), Orea (2002) and Tovar and Rendeiro (2009b).
9
This is in order to weaken as much as possible the implications of assuming a
particular functional form for the underlying input distance function.
10
This condition has been imposed by normalizing the distance function with
one of the inputs, which is in accordance with Lovell et al. (1994). This methodology
has been applied in some empirical papers; see Coelli and Perelman (1999 and
2000), Morrison et al. (2000), Orea (2002) and Tovar and Rendeiro (2009a) among
others.
11
We do it through Frontier, version 4.1, developed by Coelli (1996).
bi ln yit
828
1 N
1
M N
1
X
X
X
1 NX
aij ln xit ln xjt
gij ln yit ln xjt
2 i j
i
j
l1 T l11 T 2
n1
X
d1i T ln xit
with
xit
M
X
xit =xnit
where Ti is the last time period in the ith panel, Z is the decay
parameter to be estimated, uit is the non-negative random variables
which are assumed to account for technical inefciency in production
and are taken to be iid as truncations at zero of the N(m,s2u ) distribution.
The parameters obtained by the estimation allow us to calculate
and to decompose the TFP change relative to the input distance
function, which is estimated in the following way12:
h
i
TEi1
@ln Di0
i1
ln TFP
@ln@tDi1
TFPi0 ln TEi0 0:5
@t
0:5
M
X
emit
@ ln Dit
@ ln ymit
bm
M
X
bmi ln ymit
m1
N
X
gni ln xnit fm t
n1
m1
with
i 1,2,:::,N; t 1,2,:::,T
where13
12
We follow the general approach outlined in Orea (2002), but instead of using
it for an output distance function we have chosen an input distance function; see
Coelli et al. (2003).
13
The multiplication of Pure Technical Efciency by Scale Efciency is called
Technical Efciency Change (tech).
14
The multiplication of Pure Technical Efciency by Scale Efciency is called
Technical Efciency Change (TECH).
15
Electricity production expanded at an annual rate of 9.7% between 1975 and
1980. Over 150 000 Km of transmission lines were built to interconnect many town
grids.
16
The electricity tariff is readjusted only every 5 years. During this period, if the
utility increases its efciency, only part of these gains is transferred to the endconsumers (factor X) and the company is allowed to increase prots. Therefore, Law
8631 has introduced incentives for utilities to increase their economic efciency.
TEi1
Pure Technical Efficiency Change PECH ln
;
TE
i0
@ln Di0
@ln Di1
;
Technical Change TECHCH 0:5
@t
@t
Scale Efficiency Change SECH
M
X
0:5
SFi0 emi0 SFi1 emi1 ln yji1 ln yji0
m1
@ln Dit
@t
l1 2l11 t
N
X
dn ln xnit
n1
M
X
fm ln ymit
m1
829
Table 1
Sample companies in 2005.
Firm
Sales
(GWh)
Number of
customers
Size
Region of
country
covered
AESSUL
BANDEIRANTE
CEB
CELG
CELPA
CELPE
CEMAT
CEMIG
COELBA
COELCE
COSERN
CPFL
ELEKTRO
ENERGIPE
ENERSUL
ESCELSA
LIGHT
6293.00
7257.00
2911.10
6033.20
3875.30
6581.30
3474.70
35756.30
8535.80
5668.00
2668.00
16413.00
8299.50
1318.90
2308.10
4615.40
16078.20
1038
1275
722
1900
1298
2416
782
5952
3787
2297
861
3225
1885
461
651
1022
3765
Medium
Medium
Small
Medium
Small
Medium
Small
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Large
Medium
Small
Small
Small
Large
South
South east
Mid west
Mid west
North
North east
Mid west
South east
North east
North east
North east
South east
South east
North east
Mid west
South east
South east
4. Results
4.1. Global efciency results
Table 3 shows the parameters from the input distance function
estimated by maximum likelihood. It can be seen that all the rst
order parameters are statistically signicant, and have the correct
sign. This implies that the estimated distance function complies
with all the expected theoretical properties. The conditions of
regularity are satised at the sample mean; i.e. inputs are nondecreasing and quasi-concave, and outputs are decreasing. The
variables have been divided by the geometric mean, therefore the
rst order coefcients can be interpreted as elasticity. Moreover,
18
Network losses can be categorized as technical and non-technical losses; i.e.
measurement errors and un-metered supplies. From the technical point of view, to
increase productivity a reduction is required in both types of losses. Thus, any
regulation to control unmetered supplies or to perform the maintenance of the
network results in the productivity development.
19
This choice might lead certain bias since capital input per network-km is
different in rural and urban areas, but is partially corrected by an adequate denition
of the outputs to capture the differences in the average levels of consumption (as we
made). Another possibility could be to consider the network length as an output
(Estache et al., 2004); but, in that case, we would not have other alternative measure
for capital.
830
Table 2
Sample summary statistics.
Variables
Outputs
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Inputs
Sales (GWh)
Number of
customers
Length of electricity
grid (km)
Number of
employees
Losses (GWh)
8307.23
8082.68
1318.90
35756.30
1719.00
1296.05
334.43
5951.90
68899.10
75610.23
11,306.00
379400.00
2501.80
2471.40
597.00
11748.00
2779.64
2666.55
669.00
14324.00
Table 3
Input distance function parameter estimates.
Variable
Cte
Delivered energy (MWh)
Customers (no)
network length (km)
Labor (no)
Losses (Mwh)
T
Delivered energy sq
Delivered energy Vs customers
Network length Vs delivered
energy
Labor x delivered energy
Losses x delivered energy
Delivered energy Vs trend
Customers sq
Network length Vs customers
Labor Vs customers
Losses Vs customers
Customers Vs trend
Network length sq
Network length Vs labor
Network length Vs losses
Network length Vs trend
Labor sq
Labor Vs losses
Labor Vs trend
Losses sq
Losses Vs trend
Trend sq
Sigma-squared
Gamma
Mu
Eta
coefcient
0.440
0.237
0.545
0.275
0.468
0.256
0.049
0.191
0.344
0.034
LIGHT
standarderror
0.044
0.074
0.143
0.032
0.041
0.038
0.008
0.193
0.209
0.071
0.273
0.121
0.239
0.140
0.005
0.015
0.941
0.338
0.075
0.082
0.118
0.149
0.193
0.173
0.073
0.016
0.032
0.044
0.088
0.062
0.056
0.068
0.006
0.009
0.161
0.160
0.073
0.113
0.038
0.019
0.017
0.077
0.044
0.017
0.009
0.004
0.290
0.169
0.956
0.009
Is restricted to be zero
0.126
0.024
t-ratio
10.098
3.206
3.818
8.520
11.337
6.688
5.834
0.993
1.647
0.487
2.259
1.700
0.320
2.788
0.917
0.794
1.113
4.503
0.729
1.414
0.831
0.640
1.008
0.650
1.965
0.219
2.526
2.089
1.983
111.200
5.275
AESSUL
1
BANDEIRANTE
0.8
ESCELSA
CEB
0.6
ENERSUL
CELG
0.4
0.2
CELPA
ENERGIPE
0
ELEKTRO
CELPE
CPFL
CEMAT
COSERN
CEMIG
COELCE
COELBA
Table 4
Malmquist Index. Summary of years means.
831
Table 5
Malmquist Index. Summary of rms means.
TECHCH
TECH
Pure TECH
SE CH
TFPCH
1998 1999
1999 2000
2000 2001
2001 2002
2002 2003
2003 2004
2004 2005
1.074
1.064
1.057
1.050
1.040
1.032
1.024
0.981
0.981
0.945
0.973
0.965
0.934
0.942
0.975
0.972
0.968
0.964
0.959
0.953
0.947
1.006
1.009
0.976
1.009
1.006
0.979
0.994
1.056
1.046
1.002
1.024
1.006
0.965
0.967
Mean
1.049
0.960
0.963
0.997
1.009
TECHCH
TECH
Pure TECH
SE CH
TFPCH
AESSUL
BANDEIRANTE
CEB
CELG
CELPA
CELPE
CEMAT
CEMIG
COELBA
COELCE
COSERN
CPFL
ELEKTRO
ENERGIPE
ENERSUL
ESCELSA
LIGHT
1.013
1.035
0.994
1.084
1.047
1.073
1.011
1.158
1.115
1.080
1.001
1.097
1.068
0.964
0.998
1.020
1.087
0.998
0.958
0.994
0.918
0.960
0.963
0.973
0.902
0.953
0.971
0.998
0.973
0.936
0.935
0.967
0.957
0.967
0.997
0.997
0.982
0.919
0.937
0.966
0.940
0.913
0.969
0.978
0.984
0.975
0.935
0.993
0.958
0.959
0.967
1.001
0.960
1.012
0.999
1.024
0.997
1.035
0.988
0.983
0.993
1.015
0.998
1.001
0.941
1.009
0.998
1.000
1.011
0.992
0.988
1.002
1.008
1.036
0.985
1.059
1.067
1.051
0.999
1.069
1.004
0.897
0.965
0.977
1.054
Mean
1.049
0.9597
0.963
0.997
1.009
Table 6
Average economies of scale by rms.
Firms
Scale Economies
AESSUL
BANDEIRANTE
CEB
CELG
CELPA
CELPE
CEMAT
CEMIG
COELBA
COELCE
COSERN
CPFL
ELEKTRO
ENERGIPE
ENERSUL
ESCELSA
LIGHT
1.483899
1.539360
3.076883
1.004043
1.633932
0.937203
2.639134
0.750845
0.771375
0.909045
1.624996
0.946164
1.109348
4.849903
2.352069
1.756548
0.980463
Conversely, the biggest rms are moving away from this point,27
although here the impact of the scale effect on productivity is
not relevant. This last result suggests the existence of constant
returns once the minimum efcient scale has been reached, that
is a common nding in the literature.
2. Technical change (TECHCH) has proved to be a positive component within the TFP, and is stronger for the biggest rms in the
sample. Cemig, Light, CPFL have values of about 10% average
annual growth. For the smallest rms, technical change is less
important and sometimes negative; this can be seen in the case
of Energipe, Enersul, and Ceb. In order to analyse this result, as
previously stated, we decompose the technical change measurement [as dened by Eq. (4)] into a pure technical change
(PTC), non-neutral technical change (NNTC) and scale augmenting technical change (SATC); see Table 7. It can be noted that
scale augmenting explains this fact; this is because it is positive
and stronger as the products grows, while pure technical change
does not depend on rm size and the non-neutral effect is not
quantitative relevant. It can be concluded that the frontier shift
27
The value of the economies of scale for CELG is 1, and consequently the scale
does not affect the TFP.
832
Table 7
Technological change decomposition by rms.
TECHCH
Pure
TECHCH
NonNeutral
TECHCH
Scale
Augmenting
TCCHCH
AESSUL
BANDEIRANTE
CEB
CELG
CELPA
CELPE
CEMAT
CEMIG
COELBA
COELCE
COSERN
CPFL
ELEKTRO
ENERGIPE
ENERSUL
ESCELSA
LIGHT
1.0134
1.0349
0.9938
1.0840
1.0472
1.0734
1.0112
1.1577
1.1151
1.0802
1.0007
1.0967
1.0683
0.9644
0.9976
1.0200
1.0874
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
1.0487
0.9897
0.9820
0.9989
1.0192
1.0114
0.9906
1.0133
1.0146
1.0069
1.0037
0.9920
0.9965
1.0030
0.9956
1.0061
0.9987
0.9778
0.9750
1.0044
0.9462
1.0160
0.9870
1.0341
0.9492
1.0941
1.0594
1.0276
0.9600
1.0514
1.0166
0.9199
0.9427
0.9726
1.0610
Mean
1.0486
1.0487
0.9999
0.9999
Acknowledgements
This research was funded with Grant from Programa Hispano
o de Cooperacion Interuniversitaria (HPB-20070022-PC).
Brasilen
Ramos-Real and Tovar would like to thank the hospitality at the
UFRJ while working on this research
References
5. Conclusions
The objective of this paper is to analyse how the rm size affects
the performance of the electricity distribution industry, by calculating the productivity development in the Brazilian Electricity
Industry (BEI). In order to measure the productivity, we calculate
the best frontier by estimating a parametric distance function. The
data used in this paper consists of a balanced sample of 17 private
Brazilian electricity distribution rms over an 8-year period from
1998 to 2005.
The evolution of the TFP is positive during the period 1998
2003, and grew from 5.6% to 0.6%. This was mainly because of the
positive contribution of technical change; however, TFP was
negative during the two last years. The productivity development
for the sampled companies during the period analysed depends
mainly on the frontier shift, that is to say, technical change mainly
due to technological innovations. On the other hand, the pure
technical efciency change, that is the catching up effect, shows
that the rms are moving away from the efciency frontier, and
have not improved their behaviour regardless rm size. These two
ndings generally conrm those of Ramos-Real et al. (2009),
Resende (2002) and Mota (2004).
Three facts have been observed with respect to rm size. Firstly,
neither the technical efciency ranking nor the negative catching
up effect is directly related to rm size. Secondly, the scale effect
28
It is important to note that technical change is inuenced by the size of the
rm whether or not this is far from the efciency frontier. If a company comes close
to the border is reected in the catching up effect.
Aigner, D.J., Lovell, C.A.K., Schmidt, P., 1977. Formulation and estimation of
stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics 6,
121137.
Almeida, Edmar, Pinto Jr., Helder, 2000. Driving forces of the Brazilian electricity
industry reform. Energy Studies Review, 9 (2), Toronto, Canada.
Bagdadioglu, N., Waddams-Price, C., Weyman-Jones, T., 2007. Measuring potential
gains from mergers among electricicity distribution companies in Turkey using
a non-parametric Model. The Energy Journal 28 (2), 83110.
Battese, G.E., Coelli, T.J., 1992. Frontier production function, technical efciency and
panel data: with application to paddy farmers in India. Journal of Productivity
Analysis 3, 153169.
Battese, G.E. y, Corra, G.S., 1977. Estimation of a production frontier model: with
application to the Pastoral zone of eastern Australia. Australian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 21, 169179.
Caves, 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, 13931414.
Coelli, T., 1996. A guide to FRONTIER Version 4.1: a computer program for stochastic
frontier production and cost function estimation. Centre for efciency and
productivity analysis. University of New England.
Coelli, T., Perelman, S., 1999. A comparison of parametric and non-parametric
distance functions: with application to European railways. European Journal of
Operational Research 117, 326339.
Coelli, T., Estache, A., Perelman, S., Trujillo, L., 2003. A primer on efciency
measurement for utilities and transport regulators. WBI development studies.
The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Domah, P., Pollitt, M., 2001. The restructuring and privatization of electricity
distribution and supply businesses in England and Wales: A social cost-benet
analysis. Fiscal Studies 22, 107146.
Estache, A., Rossi, M.A., Ruzzier, 2004. The case for international coordination of
electricity regulation: evidence from the measurement of efciency in South
America. Journal of Regulatory Economics 25 (3), 271295.
Fare,
R., Grosskopf, S., Roos, P., 1997. Malmquist productivity indexes: a survey of
theory and practice. In: Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Rusell, R.R. (Eds.), Index Numbers:
Essay in Honour of Sten Malmquist. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston.
Fuentes, H., Grifell-Tatje, E., Perelman, S., 2001. A parametric distance function approach
for Malmquist index estimation. Journal of Productivity Analysis 15, 7994.
Hattori, T., Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M., 2005. The electricity distribution in the UK and
Japan: a comparative efciency analysis 1985-1998. Energy Journal 26 (2),
2347.
Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M., 2000. Benchmarking and regulation of electricity transmission
and distribution utilities: lessons from international experience. University of
Cambridge.
Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M., 2003. International benchmarking and regulation: an
application to European electricity distribution utilities. Energy Policy 2003
31 (15), 16091622.
Kim, S., Han, G., 2001. A decomposition of total factor productivity growth in Korean
manufacturing industries: a stochastic frontier approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis 16, 269281.
Kwoka, J., 2005. Electric power distribution: economies of scale, mergers and
restructuring. Applied Economics 37, 23732386.
Kwoka, J., Pollitt, M., 2007. Industry restructuring, mergers and efciency: evidence
from electric power. Electricity Policy Research Group Working Papers, no. EPRG
07/08. University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Kumbhakar, S.C., Heshmati, A., 1996. Technical change and total factor Productivity
Growth in Swedish manufacturing industries. Econometric Reviews 15,
275298.
Kumbhakar, S., Lovell, K.C.A., 2000. Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Kumbhakar, S., Lovell, K.C.A., 2003. Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lovell, C.A.K., Richardson, S., Travers, P., Wood, L., 1994. Resources and Functioning:
a New View of Inequality in Australia. In: Eichhorn, W. (Ed.), Models and
Measurement of Welfare and Inequality. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Meeusen, W., Van den Broeck, J., 1977. Efciency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas
Production Functions with Composed Error. International Economic Review 18,
435444.
833
Mota, R., 2004. Comparing Brazil and USA electricity distribution performance: what
was the impact of Privatization? Cambridge Working Papers in economics
CWPE 0423. The Cambridge-MIT Institute 2004.
Morrison, C.J., Johnston, W.E., Frengley, G.A.G., 2000. Efciency in New Zealand
Sheep and Beef Farming: the Impacts of Regulation Reform. Review of
Economics and Statistics 82, 325337.
Orea, L., 2002. Parametric decomposition of a generalized Malmquist productivity
index. Journal of Productivity Analysis 18, 522.
Pinto J.R.H., 2003. Les proble mes des reformes structurelles et institutionnelles
inachevees : le cas de lindustrie electrique au Bresil. Revue de lEnergie.
Pinto, J.R.H., de Oliveira, A., 1995. La restructuration des industries electriques en
Amerique Latine. Revue de lEnergie 465.
Ramos-Real, F.J., 2005. Costs functions and the electric utility industry. A contribution to the debate on deregulation. Energy Policy 33 (1), 6987.
Ramos-Real, F., Tovar, B., Iootty, M., Fagundes de Almeida, E., Queiroz, H., 2009. The
evolution and main determinants of productivity in Brazilian electricity
distribution 19982005: an empirical analysis. Energy Economics 31 (2),
298305.
Resende, M., 2002. Relative efciency measurement and prospects for yardstick
competition in Brazilian electricity distribution. Energy Policy 30 (8), 637647.
Shephard, R.W., 1953. Cost and production functions. Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
Shephard, R.W., 1970. Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Tovar, B., Rendeiro, Martn-Cejas, 2009a. Are outsourcing and non-aeronautical
revenues important drivers in the efciency of Spanish Airports? Journal of Air
Transport Management 15, 217220.
Tovar, B., Rendeiro Martn-Cejas, 2009b. Technical efciency and productivity
changes in Spanish airports: a parametric distance functions approach. Transportation Reseach, Part E. 10.1016/j.tre.2009.08.007.