Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps

Invited paper

Long-term efficiency of public service provision in a context of budget

restrictions. An application to the education sector
Laura López-Torres a, Diego Prior b, *
a
Department of Economics and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Alcala, Plaza de La Victoria, 28802, Alcalá de Henares, Spain
b
Department of Business, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Building B, Campus Bellaterra, 08193, Barcelona, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

JEL classification: This paper proposes an extension of the non-parametric long-term evaluation of efficiency, the conditional panel
C14 data DEA model, which takes into account the panel structure of the data and, at the same time, incorporates the
C33 role of contextual factors in the estimations. Its application to the education sector for the period analyzed
C61
(2009–2014) shows the utility of this method, since it obtains more representative efficiency scores for the
C67
complete time-period, is more robust to external shocks, and allows improvements to the decision-making
I21
process in the allocation of the budget available for the public education sector. The results are clear and pre­
Keywords:
Public education
sent an evolution towards the convergence of the efficiency scores, precisely in a time period when hard budget
Efficiency constraints severely reduced the resources available for public schools.
DEA
Panel data assessment
Budget constraints
Convergence

1. Introduction
This paper contributes to the literature on measuring educational
efficiency by extending the model proposed by Surroca et al. [1] to
compute long-term efficiency scores: the data panel DEA method. The
main advantage of this model over intertemporal frontiers ([2,3]) is
that, while preserving the intertemporal technology condition, it en­
ables us to estimate a single efficiency score per DMU (decision making
unit) for the period of analysis, taking into account the panel structure of
the data. In addition, the primal version of this model ensures that input
and output weights are invariant and representative for the period of
analysis, conditions that cannot be obtained with other models that are
not panel-based. Therefore, we obtain a consistent efficiency estimate
over time. The stability of the weights is an attractive property when
long-term evaluations are to be carried out. Furthermore, this model
avoids the volatility of running cross-sectional DEA, as it provides a
robust estimate. Thus, significant variations (shocks) in the period of
analysis are smoothed out in the estimate, since average values of the
entire period are used. We therefore calculate the time-invariant effi­
ciency score representative of the study period. In addition, building on
the extension described by Pérez-López et al. [4], we estimate
time-variant efficiency scores, thus making it possible to break down the
overall time-invariant efficiency score into yearly time-variant effi­
ciency scores based on stable input and output weights.
Specifically, this paper extends the panel data DEA model in several
ways. On the one hand, we adopt a conditional approach capable of
controlling the influence of contextual factors in shaping the efficiency
frontier. To our knowledge, previous literature using a DEA model with
panel data has not addressed this important issue. On the other hand, we
build on selective convexity in the panel data DEA model, as we are
dealing with volume and ratio measures in our model. The ability to
allow for heterogeneity in the definition of variables is another great
advantage of this proposed extension. In order to obtain acceptable es­
timations, we follow the proposal by Olesen et al. [5] to treat the vari­
ables presented in ratio form while refining the reference set technology.
In order to illustrate the benefits of our methodological proposal, we
use a complete panel database composed of public primary schools from
an area in the region of Catalonia (Spain). Specifically, and to test the
robustness of the model estimating efficiency when external shocks are
presented, we examine the period between academic years 2009/2010
and 2013/2014, a period when the public education system in Spain, as
in the rest of the world, was affected by budget cuts as a consequence of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Laura.Lopezt@uah.es (L. López-Torres), Diego.Prior@uab.es (D. Prior).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100946
Received 26 December 2019; Received in revised form 23 July 2020; Accepted 9 September 2020
Available online 15 September 2020
0038-0121/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Laura López-Torres, Diego Prior, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100946
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

the global financial crisis. Table 1

The economic crisis that hit most countries after 2008 forced public Evolution of the average expenditure per student according to the levels of the
finances to be efficient and sustainable. In this scenario, the role of International Standard Classification of Education. (Data in euros and in relation
public administrations, responsible for the provision of public services, to GDP per capita).
has gained attention in the literature, as several economic reforms have Panel A
been implemented with the aim of conditioning the funding and In Euros 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
fostering the performance of public services ([6]). In parallel, scientific
Total 6,546 6,427 6,273 5,819 5,593 5,529
literature has centered the debate on defining the elements making up Primary schools 5,298 5,257 5,141 4,846 4,685 4,620
the objective function of public services, as well as on disentangling the High schools 7,175 6,928 6,783 6,230 5,738 5,653
underlying technology of public services for evaluation purposes. These University 10,071 10,147 9,829 8,887 9,100 8,924
concerns are most evident in studies dealing with efficiency assessments Professional education 7,800 7,488 7,084 6,402 6,119 5,822
in a wide range of public services, including education, health care or Panel B
local governments, among others (extensive literature reviews can be In proportion to the 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
found in Hollingsworth [7] for health care, De Witte and López-Torres GDP pc
[8] for education and Narbón-Perpiñá and De Witte [9,10] for local
Total 28.5 28.2 27.7 26.1 24.8 24.7
services). Primary schools 23.1 23.0 22.7 21.7 20.8 20.6
Education was one of the sectors most affected by the great recession High schools 31.2 30.4 29.9 27.9 25.4 25.3
due to government control of public spending. In the specific case of University 43.8 44.5 43.3 39.9 40.3 39.9
Professional education 33.9 32.8 31.2 28.7 27.1 26.0
Spain, and during the period we analyze (2009–2014), the government
significantly reduced public spending on education by 16.7%, from Source: Spanish Ministry of Education (Estadística del Gasto Público en Edu­
53,375 million euros in 2009 to 44,461 million euros in 2014, to save cación, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional).
almost 9000 million euros (see Fig. 1).
In terms of expenditure per student, Table 1 shows that in the case of the budget for school meals or textbook grants. Under these conditions,
primary education, the average expenditure in 2014 was €4620 per it is likely that this basic public service will not be provided at the same
student, which represented 20.6% of GDP per capita. If we compare level in all regions, which will presumably jeopardize the equity and the
these figures with those for 2009, we observe that the average expen­ principle of equal opportunities. In this context, any action aimed at
diture per student amounted to €5298 (23.1% of GDP per capita), rep­ assessing efficiency and performance in the public education sector is a
resenting a fall in percentage terms of 12.8%. In the period we analyze, priority for economic policy, as it can highlight strengths and weak­
there were continued reductions in educational spending that were nesses in current practices, reveal directions for improvement and, ul­
homogeneous throughout the entire public education system; cuts were timately, lead to a better use of the resources dedicated to the provision
therefore linear and equal (in relative terms) for all public educational of public services ([12]).
institutions. Consequently, our main research question is to test whether or not
The consequences of the budget cuts were especially severe in the the economic crisis has modified the long-term efficiency of public
region of Catalonia (northeast Spain), where investment in public edu­ schools. In other words, the empirical goal of this paper is to determine
cation per student for non-university levels of education remained below whether the severe budget constraints in public expenditure on educa­
the Spanish average (Fig. 2) between 2009 and 2014. tion have led to a reduction in the long-term efficiency score of schools.
Budget cuts had a direct impact on the amount of educational re­ To do so, we apply the extended version of the panel data DEA presented
sources. As an example, and according to the national statistics on public before using data from public primary schools in Catalonia, for the
education from the Ministry of Education in Spain [11] during this period 2009–2014. We will analyze this phenomenon with the most
period, some schools lost up to 2.8% of their teaching staff and one-third stable comparison conditions possible and by extending the innovative
of the hours worked by the educational psychology team. In addition, efficiency model that we explain in full below.
substantial cuts were made to schools’ operational expenditures and to Our second goal, following Guccio et al. [13,14], is to analyze the

Fig. 1. Public spending on education in Spain during the period of analysis. (data in thousands of €)
Source: Spanish Ministry of Education (Subdirección General de Estadística y Estudios del Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional).

2
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
Fig. 2. Public expenditure per student. Non-university education (in euros).
Source: Spanish Ministry of Education (Estadística del Gasto Público en Educación, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional).
convergence patterns in the efficiency scores across the analyzed period.
To address the second objective, we use the β-convergence and
σ -convergence tests developed by Barro and Sala-i-Martin [15,16]. We
aim to expand the evidence in the literature by analyzing the link be­
tween efficiency and convergence during a period of crisis. This will be
of great interest to policymakers who need to assess the stability and
convergence of the education system and promptly decide corrective
interventions. Only a few papers have attempted to investigate effi­
ciency in terms of convergence/divergence, albeit with respect to higher
education institutions ([13,14,17,18]). Thus, our goal is to provide
additional findings on efficiency convergence patterns in the Catalan
public primary education system during the crisis period.
The results indicate that inefficiency is high, as we found an output-
oriented average inefficiency score of 1.38 during the analysis period
(conditional time-invariant estimation); that is, with the same level of
educational resources, schools should be able to improve student out­
comes (measured by students’ grades in standardized skill tests at the
end of primary education) by 38%, on average. Regarding the time-
variant efficiency, our findings show that in a period of economic
recession schools tend to improve their management efficiency as a
result of measures to control and tighten public spending. In addition,
we found convergence in efficiency scores due to schools’ efforts to use
the available resources efficiently, especially during the toughest years
of the economic crisis.
This paper contributes to enrich the existing literature on efficiency
in education in the following ways: first, from the methodological point
of view, we develop a novel methodology that extends the panel data
DEA model proposed by Surroca et al. [1] by adding the role of
contextual factors into the efficiency estimation and allowing for the
inclusion of heterogeneity in the definition of variables. The paper also
advances in the study of convergence patterns of efficiency in the
educational environment. This joint approach is not very common in
previous education literature. Second, in terms of practical implications,
the results of the analysis can shed light on the public education system
at the institutional level, mainly with regard to the appropriate alloca­
tion of the available budget, especially in a context of budgetary
constraints.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: the following section
presents a brief summary of the literature on efficiency in education.
Section 3 presents the methodological development we propose. Section
4 describes the main characteristics of the dataset and the variables
included in the analysis. Section 5 discusses the results. Finally, Section
3
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
6 provides concluding remarks.
2. Review of the literature on efficiency in education
The analysis of efficiency in the education sector has a long tradition
in academic literature (see historical reviews in Worthington [19],
Johnes [20], Emrouznejad et al. [21] and, more recently, in De Witte
and López-Torres [8] and Emrouznejad and Yang [22]). Following
Hanushek [23–25], previous works used an approach based on esti­
mating the educational production function. However, this approach
does not explore the presence of potential inefficiency, since it is based
on average measures. Frontier techniques (parametric and
non-parametric) overcome this limitation and entail constructing a
boundary, composed of the most efficient units, that serves as a
benchmark for comparison purposes. Among these models, the
non-parametric approach has been most frequently adopted in the
educational context due to its ability to handle multiple intermediate
outputs and its flexibility, which makes it particularly suitable in an area
where the production technology is difficult to define ([26]). In this
sense, data envelopment analysis (DEA), free disposal hull (FDH), and
partial frontiers (mainly order-m and order-α) are the most frequently
used models in empirical studies.
Starting from the pioneering works by Bessent and Bessent [27],
Charnes et al. [28,29] and Bessent et al. [30], empirical studies on ef­
ficiency in education have grown in importance. Not only has this body
of literature contributed to a better understanding of the educational
factors that influence students’ academic achievement, but it also pro­
vides useful information for public administration decision makers.
The application of this type of methodology has evolved towards
more sophisticated and robust models that allow a more accurate esti­
mate of efficiency. Regarding the role of contextual factors, the meth­
odology has advanced from the application of second-stage models [31]
to conditional models [32,33] in order to incorporate environmental
factors into the estimation of efficiency scores and explore their poten­
tial influence without assuming the ungranted separability condition of
two-stage approaches. Applications of this method in the education
sector can be found in Cherchye et al. [34], Haelermans and De Witte
[35], De Witte and Kortelainen [36], López-Torres and Prior [37],
Cordero et al. [38] and López-Torres et al. [39].
Nevertheless, most of these studies adopt a cross-sectional approach,
which makes it difficult to obtain a long-term view of the efficiency over
time and conclude with a stable efficiency score regardless of the period
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

of analysis. Some papers in the literature try to surpass this limitation by
applying a dynamic index to reveal total factor productivity changes
over time and decompose several measures of productivity growth into
components of technological and efficiency change through ratio-based
productivity indexes. One example is the Malmquist Index ([40]).1
Despite its multiple applications, this index presents some drawbacks
(see Bjurek et al. [43] for more details). An alternative is the application
of the Hicks-Moorsteen index, proposed by Bjurek [44], which is defined
as a ratio of a Malmquist output-oriented index over a Malmquist
[y0 = y01 , …, y0m , …, y0M ∈ RM
+ ] denote the variables corresponding to the
observed unit under analysis. With a panel data structure, we define a
new variable τ (τ = 1, …, T) representing the corresponding time period
for the inputs and the outputs: [xs,1 τ , …, xs,n τ , …, xs,Nτ ∈ RN+ ] and [ys,τ = ys1τ ,…
,ys,mτ ,…,ys,Mτ ∈ RM
+ ]. Following the proposal of Surroca et al. [1], the primal
variable returns-to-scale time-invariant panel data DEA evaluation is as
follows:
∑
N

input-oriented index. Despite its good theoretical properties, this index Min
ti ti
hti,vrs = vti0 + vtin x̃on ;
um ,vn
is seldom applied in the literature on efficiency in education. Empirical n =1

applications can be found in Arjomandi et al. [45] and Aparicio et al.

s.t.
[46].
Although the Hicks-Moorsteen index overcomes the limitations of ∑
M
the Malmquist index, it is based on an efficiency estimate that uses utim ỹom = 1; (1)
different weights for inputs and outputs in each period/year of analysis. m=1

This fact makes it difficult to interpret the efficiency score and the total
∑
M ∑
N
factor productivity change index as indicators of long-term evaluation, utim ys,mτ − vti0 − vtin xns,τ ≤ 0; s = 1, …, S; τ = 1, …, T;
since the weights are not stable throughout the analyzed period. The m=1 n =1
panel data DEA model presented below in Section 3 overcomes this
limitation and is a structurally more robust model, since the weights are utim , vtin ≥ 0; m = 1, …, M; n = 1, …, N.
the same throughout the period of analysis, thus favoring the interpre­
tation of the efficiency index obtained as an indicator of long-term where ỹom is the average value, corresponding to the output m, for the
( )
evaluation. ∑ /
complete time period T ỹom = Tτ=1 yo, τ
m T and x̃on is the average value,
3. Methodology (
corresponding to the input n, for the complete time period T x̃on =
An important decision to be made before starting to estimate in­ )
efficiency levels relates to the specification of the prevalent technology. ∑T o,τ
/
τ=1 xn T . Applying program [1], one time-invariant efficiency co­
This specification is not trivial, as it has direct implications for the ef­
ficiency levels to be found. With non-parametric technology, DEA efficient (hti,vrs ), M output weights (uti1 , …, utiM ), and N input weights, (vti1 ,
models operate with virtual points, thus establishing linear combina­
…, vtiN ), are estimated for each unit. Besides determining the
tions among real observations. As a result, each inefficient unit is related
time-invariant stable common set of weights, program [1] has three
to another one, or a convex combination of other units, that is more
additional properties: a) it is less dependent on the specific values of the
efficient.
variables in one particular year; b) it ensures that no changes in the
The literature highlights some important limitations of non-
valuation system (the input and output weights) take place across time
parametric frontier estimation methods: the curse of dimensionality,
periods; and c) the consideration of average values does not imply any
their lack of statistical properties – as they are deterministic in nature –
loss of information, because the reference technology has not been
and the potential impact of outliers in the estimations ([47,48]).
modified. However, despite these advantages, we must consider that this
Various proposals have been put forward to overcome these limita­
methodology is based on Tulkens’ intertemporal analysis ([2]), and
tions. In this paper, we are interested in a phenomenon––the conver­
therefore it is assumed that there is no technological change over time.2
gence patterns in the efficiency scores across the analyzed period––that
For computation reasons, it is convenient to define the dual program
in optimal conditions would be analyzed in the most homogeneous
of [1], which provides the output-oriented variable returns-to-scale time-­
possible way. For this reason, we extend the recent proposal to use panel
invariant panel data DEA model:
data DEA ([1]) to consider the estimation of efficiency scores with the
following characteristics: i) ability to operate with unconditional as well Max
s,τ
hti,vrs = αti ;
as conditional estimations; ii) offering time invariant and time variant
λ

efficiency scores; and iii) allowing for technologies that present vari­ s.t.
ables in volume and in ratio form; in other words, the ability to define a
technology with selective convexity, following Podinovski [49]. One of ∑
S ∑
T
the outstanding characteristics of this approach is that the results are λs,τ ys,mτ ≥ αti ỹom ; m = 1, …, M; (2)
robust to the presence of outliers and temporal random shocks, and s=1 τ = 1

provide a specific efficiency score for each unit, representative of the

∑
S ∑
T
complete time period being analyzed. Hence, the interpretation of the λs,τ xs,n τ ≤ x̃on ; n = 1, …, N;
results obtained is not far from what can be obtained from a fixed-effects s=1 τ = 1

parametric regression.
∑
S ∑
T
λs,τ = 1;
3.1. Panel data DEA model s=1 τ = 1

λs,τ ≥ 0.
We now introduce some notations. Assume that for S units (s = 1,…,
S) there are N inputs [xs = xs1 , …, xsn , …, xsN ∈ RN+ ]producing M outputs where λs,τ stands for the activity vector in an intertemporal technology.
[ys = ys1 , …, ysm , …, ysM ∈ RM 0 0 0 N
+ ]. Let [x1 , …, xn , …, xN ∈ R+ ]and

2
In an analysis of productive processes affected by important technological
1
See Färe et al. [41] and Grosskopf [42] for historical overviews. changes, it would be necessary to control for this source of heterogeneity.

4
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

3.2. Time-varying panel data efficiency scores b is the smoothing bandwidth. The conditional efficiency estimation
implies the restriction of the technology to consider only those units that
Following Pérez-López et al. [4] the efficiency coefficients estimated happen to have their contextual variables in between the two extremes
in programs [1,2] can be defined as time-invariant as they are unique and delimited by the respective bandwidth:
representative of the complete time period under analysis. However, as
(z − b) ≤ z0 ≤ (z + b) (6)
we are interested in analyzing to what extent there is convergence on the
levels of efficiency, it could be of interest to know the variations in the The conditional output-oriented variable returns-to-scale time-invariant
efficiency coefficients during the different time periods. In this panel data DEA model:
sub-section, we demonstrate that from the time-invariant efficiency coef­ ti,vrs
ficient it is possible to develop a time-variant series of efficiency coefficients.
ti
Max̂
h =α
̂ ;
λŝ,τ̂
To do so, we define the following Proposition:
Proposition. Assuming the existence of just one output (M = 1), and s.t.
that ỹ* is the maximum level of output at the frontier, the time-invariant
panel data efficiency coefficient hti,vrs can be defined as hti,vrs = ỹ*/ o . In ̂S ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂
ỹ ∑ T ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)
∑
(7)
ti
these circumstances, the time-invariant panel data efficiency coefficient λŝ,τ̂ yŝ,τ̂
m ≥̂ α ỹom ; m = 1, …, M;
is dependent on the specific levels of efficiency coefficients corre­ ̂s∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂τ ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)

sponding to each year (the time-variant panel data efficiency coefficients).

Proof. Assuming the existence of one output, the time-invariant panel ̂S ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂
∑ T ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)
∑
data efficiency coefficient is: λŝ,τ̂ xnŝ,τ̂ ≤ x̃on ; n = 1, …, N;
̂s∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂τ ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)
y*
hti,vrs = (3)
ỹo ̂S ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂
T ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)
∑ ∑
Both the numerator and the denominator are averages of the values λŝ,τ̂ = 1;
corresponding to each of the years: ̂s∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂τ ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)

∑T *,τ ∑T o,τ
y y
ỹ*m = τ=1 m ; ỹom = τ=1 m (4)
T T
After introducing these averages into the original expression of the
time-invariant panel data efficiency coefficients and some manipulations,
the mathematical expression [2] concludes as follows:
∑
T
hti,vrs = htv,1 w1 + … + htv,τ wτ + … + htv,T wT = htv,τ wτ
τ=1
The proof demonstrates that time-invariant panel data efficiency is the
weighted average of the time-variant panel data efficiency coefficient.
Q.E.D.
3.3. Extending the panel data DEA: the conditional model
Primal and dual programs defined in sub-section 2.1 can be labeled
as unconditional models, as they do not restrict any possible unit to be the
benchmark of the DMU under analysis. This implies that, when the level
of efficiency achieved is dependent from specific environmental condi­
tions, unconditional models can overestimate the level of inefficiency if
the benchmark of an inefficient unit is operating in a more favorable
environment. To control for these circumstances, Cazals et al. [47] and
Daraio and Simar [32,33] developed a conditional efficiency approach to
account for those variables in the same model of efficiency estimation.
The basic rationale behind conditional models is to compare the unit
under analysis with other units that present similar levels in the
contextual or environmental factors (Z ∈ Rr ).
The conditional approach has become very popular in the recent
literature on efficiency measurement in education (e.g. Ref. [34,36,
50–53]). To estimate the conditional efficiency scores, smoothing
techniques are needed such that, in the reference samples, observations
with comparable z-values have to be chosen. Therefore, this approach
relies on the estimation of a non-parametric kernel function to select the
appropriate reference partners and a bandwidth parameter h using a
method with some bandwidth choice. As all our Z variables are
continuous, we apply the method proposed by Badin et al. [54], based
on the least squares cross validation procedure (LSCV) developed in
Racine and Li [55], Hall et al. [56] and Li and Racine [57].
Following De Witte and Kortelainen [36], we employ the Epa­
nechnikov kernel density function (Kb̂ (z,zi ) = b− 1 {K[(Z − zi ) /b)]}where
λŝ,τ̂ ≥ 0.
It is clear that the unconditional efficiency score from expression [2]
will always exhibit equal or more inefficiency than the conditional ef­
ti,vrs
ficiency score from expression [7] (meaning, hti,vrs ≥ ̂
h ) because,
depending on the value of the smoothing bandwidth b, the left-hand side
(5) of program [7] will have fewer components than the left-hand side of
program [2].
3.4. Extending the panel data DEA: selective convexity
Section 3.1 presents the variables selected as output and inputs. This
selection is well underpinned in previous literature, but it presents a
problem that must be considered in the definition of the models to be
estimated. Table 4 in Section 4.2 below shows that most of the variables
can be characterized as volume variables (meaning they have a
magnitude that expresses the size of the unit). These variables are y1, x1
and x2. However, the third input, x3, is an ordinal variable that reflects
the family input —Parental Education— and goes from 0 to 8 but
without providing information about the level of the inputs consumed.
This situation can bias the results3 and according to Olesen et al. [5],
there are two possible ways to control this effect. One of them is to
define a non-convex technology, which means comparing real units with
real units, but this solution requires a large sample of DMUs and un­
fortunately this is not our case. Olesen et al. [5] propose a second
possible way forward, known as ‘selective convexity’. In our specific
case, the selective convexity criterion implies the requirement to define
an additional constraint when defining the technology: being ̂ n an
ordinal input, the selective convexity criterion is similar to what is
considered in a non-convex technology, say xn̂ s,τ < x̃n̂ o , which means
that the benchmark chosen as a peer of the unit under analysis has to
operate with a level of this input not greater than the unit under
assessment. Introducing this additional requirement to model [7] gives
rise to our selective conditional output-oriented variable returns-to-scale
time-invariant panel data DEA model, which is as follows:
3
When the output is a volume variable and the input a ratio, large DMUs
appear to be more efficient. When the output is a ratio and the input a volume
variable, small DMUs will present a better level of efficiency.

5
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

̂ ti,vrs ̂ ti ̂ tv,τ− 1
Max ̂
h =α
̂ ; Ln ̂
hs is the natural logarithm of the time-variant selective condi­
λŝ,τ̂
tional output-oriented efficiency score of the DMU s in period τ − 1; α
s. t. and β are the parameters to be estimated, being β the convergence
parameter; and ετs is the error term. Following Kumar and Russell [64],
̂S ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂T ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) we used generalized least squares (GLS) to run the estimations in case
( ) ( ) errors are correlated and/or there is inequality in variances.
̂S ∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ̂T ∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o
∑ ∑ ti
The σ-convergence represents the estimation of the cross-sectional
λŝ,τ̂ yŝ,τ̂
m ≥ ̂
̂
α ỹom ; m = 1, …, M; (8) dispersion. It indicates the speed with which the efficiency of a DMU
̂s∣(z−( b≤z0 ≤z+b) ) ̂τ ∣(z−( b≤z ≤z+b)
0
) converges with the average efficiency level of the sample. In our case we
̂s∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ̂τ ∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o can define the σ -convergence as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ ( tv,τ
)2
√∑S
̂S ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂T ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)
√ s=1 Ln ̂ ̂
h s − uτ
√
̂S ∣(xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ) ̂T ∣(xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ) στ = (11)
∑ ∑ S
λŝ,τ̂ xnŝ,τ̂ ≤ x̃on ; n = 1, …̂
n …, N;
̂ tv,τ
̂s∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂τ ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) where Ln ̂ h s is the natural logarithm of the time-variant selective
̂s∣(xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ) ̂τ ∣(xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ) conditional output-oriented efficiency score of the DMU s in period τ, S is
the total number of DMUs considered in the study, and uτ is the sample
̂ tv,τ
̂S ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂T ∣(z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)
( ) ( ) mean of Ln ̂ h s . Therefore, there will be σ -convergence if στ decreases
̂S ∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ̂T ∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o over time.
∑ ∑
λŝ,τ̂ = 1;
̂s∣((z− b≤z0 ≤z+b) ̂
4. Data and variables
) τ ∣((z− b≤z0 ≤z+b)
)
̂s∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o ̂τ ∣ xn̂ s,τ <x̃n̂ o
The methodological approach described above was applied to
calculate long-term efficiencies in the Catalan public education sector.
ŝ,τ̂
λ ≥ 0. We selected the education sector for the analysis in view of its major
As the left-hand side component of restrictions in model [8] will have importance in terms of cost, economic and social returns, because it is a
fewer potential DMUs to be combined than programs [2,7], we can basic public service ([65]), and because its performance needs to be
expect to estimate a lower level of inefficiency, which implies that: studied in greater detail.

ti,vrs ̂ ti,vrs
hti,vrs ≥ ̂
h ≥̂
h (9)
4.1. Sample description

3.5. Analysis of convergence
In this subsection we describe the tests used to analyze the patterns of
convergence in the efficiency of schools. The idea is to extend the evi­
dence found in the efficiency analysis by looking at the dynamics of
efficiency in terms of convergence of the Catalan public schools in the
considered period. In this line, Barro and Sala-i-Martin [15,16] proposed
two tests for convergence: β-convergence and σ-convergence. These tests
have been previously applied in the efficiency literature (see examples
for the banking sector in Refs. [58,59,60,61and62] and, for the educa­
tional context, in Ref. [13,14,63and46]).
The β-convergence is determined from the regression of the growth
rate on the initial level of any variable which, in our case, is the effi­
ciency score. In our context, β-convergence establishes a relation be­
tween the efficiency score with respect to the initial period of analysis.
The purpose is to investigate whether the performance of schools that
had poorer levels of efficiency in the first period grows at a faster rate
than that of schools with a better initial score. Therefore, if the coeffi­
cient is negative and statistically significant, there is a convergence; if
the relationship is positive, there is a divergence. The regression func­
tion for computing β-convergence in the case of the analysis of efficiency
using the conditional panel data DEA time-variant estimates is as
follows:
In this study we use data from public schools in the Spanish region of
Catalonia. The Spanish education system is decentralized across 17 re­
gions (called Comunidades Autónomas) that have the necessary compe­
tences for funding and monitoring public and semi-private (publicly
funded) schools. The role of the national government in this decentral­
ized system is limited to legislating and establishing a minimum com­
mon educational framework for the country. Public schools are funded
by taxpayers and managed by the Department of Education of each re­
gion. As we stated in the introduction, our analysis is restricted to public
education institutions, as they were more likely to suffer from the cut­
backs introduced in response to the economic crisis. Moreover, we focus
our analysis on primary schools. As in the rest of the country, public
primary education in Catalonia is compulsory and free from six to twelve
years old. Primary education encompasses six academic years divided
into three cycles, each of two academic years.4
Within the Catalan system, there are several Regional Educational
Areas (REAs), which are agencies––like educational dis­
tricts––answerable to the Department of Education in Catalonia. These
REAs are managed by a group of education inspectors who provide
schools with assistance and help them conduct the homogeneous stan­
dardized skills tests at the end of primary education (when students
finish the sixth course).

̂ tv,τ ̂ tv,τ− 1
̂ tv,τ− 1
Ln ̂h s − Ln ̂
hs = α + βLn ̂
hs + ετs (10) 4
Primary education in Spain consists of six academic courses. These six
courses are divided into three cycles, each of two courses. The first cycle, called
̂ tv,τ the initial cycle, includes the first and second years of primary education; the
where Ln ̂h s is the natural logarithm of the time-variant selective
second, the intermediate cycle, covers the third and the fourth courses, and the
conditional output-oriented efficiency score of the DMU s in period τ;
third one, or upper cycle, the fifth and the sixth years of primary education.
According to the Spanish Educational Law, LOMCE 2013, students should ac­
quire specific competences in each cycle. The law also establishes that a student
can repeat only one course during the entire primary education stage.

6
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
To carry out our analysis, we use school level data from the Vallès
Occidental REA.5 This REA consists of a total of 23 municipalities and is
located in the surroundings of Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia. We
consider that it is a representative sample to run our analysis, as this REA
includes more than 100 public primary schools. In addition, it offers a
representative picture of the population of public primary schools in
Catalonia and Spain, as it is a mixture of metropolitan cities and agri­
cultural towns. In order to contextualize and externally validate our
results, Table 2 presents some figures to show the similarity between the
selected REA, Vallès Occidental, Catalonia and Spain during the period of
analysis.6
Our data comes from the Evaluation Council of the Education System
in Catalonia (Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu). As
stated before, in the sixth year of primary education all students are
tested on their basic skills in mathematics, Catalan, Spanish and a
foreign language (English). The Evaluation Council and the inspectors in
each REA conduct a comprehensive uniform standardized diagnostic
assessment of students.7 We use students’ grades in these standardized
tests as our main output variable, together with other variables (inputs
and environmental factors) that we present below, in order to analyze
the effect of the economic crisis on long-term efficiency in public pri­
mary schools.
Our unit of analysis is the school, and the dataset covers five aca­
demic years, from 2009/2010 to 2013/2014, an extensive period to
analyze the consequences of the economic crisis. Using this information,
we built a complete and balanced five-year panel data set composed of
124 public primary schools from Vallès Occidental. Table 3 summarizes
the number of students and schools per academic year. In total, our
balanced panel is composed of 620 observations, 124 schools per year,
encompassing 231,971 students.8
4.2. Description of variables
The dataset provided by the Evaluation Council provides some in­
formation on students’ educational achievement in the comprehensive
uniform standardized tests, their families, the educational environment,
and school management. From this information and following the
literature on efficiency in education (see Ref. [8] for a systematic liter­
ature review), we selected the following variables of analysis. Table 4
contains the definitions of the variables included in the analysis.
5
We have data for the entire population of public primary schools in Cata­
lonia for the period of analysis. However, the computation of the conditional
version of the panel data DEA requires powerful resources to compute the
bandwidths for each environmental variable in a reasonable time. For that
reason, we only consider Vallès Occidental, which is representative of the
population of public primary schools in Catalonia and Spain, so it would be
feasible to extrapolate our results to the situation of public primary schools in
the rest of the country.
6 some papers have considered it as an environmental factor ([81]), others
We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for raising this point.
7 as an input reflecting the students’ raw material ([77,78,82]), while
Note that these comprehensive standard tests are graded by external
teachers and education inspectors.
8
Before setting up the final sample, we performed a test to detect outliers
following the approach by Prior and Surroca [66]. The procedure of identifying
extreme observations is continued as long as the null hypotheses of equality
between successive efficiency distributions for the complete sample cannot be
rejected. This procedure identified only one school in the sample as an outlier,
which was therefore removed. Other approaches for outlier correction can be
found in Andersen and Petersen [67], Wilson [68], Simar [69] and Chen and
Johnson [70].
7
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
In line with previous papers, grades obtained by students in stan­
dardized tests are used as an output indicator ([71]).9 As Hoxby [72]
states, the most important argument for opting for this proxy as an
output is possibly that both policy makers and parents use this criterion
to evaluate school performance. At this point it is worth noting that as
we are working at school level, we computed an aggregated indicator of
grades by school. Thus, for each school we first calculated the average
grade obtained by students considering the four modules assessed in the
standardized skill tests at the end of primary education (mathematics,
Catalan, Spanish and English language). The score ranges from 0 to 100
points and the pass mark for each competence assessed is 50 points.
Then, we computed a single output labeled aggregated average grade by
multiplying the school’s average grade by the number of students
enrolled in the sixth grade of primary education, the ones who took the
tests.
The selection of variables for inputs and environmental factors can
be complex and, in some cases confusing, given that the literature is
diverse and does not specify precisely how to discriminate between
them. In this study, we based our decision on the following criterion:
input variables must fulfill the requirement of monotonicity (i.e., ceteris
paribus, more input implies an equal or higher level of output). Thus, the
selected input variables should present a significant positive correlation
with the output vector in addition to having theoretical support from
previous works.
With respect to input variables, our decision is based on the approach
used in Mancebón and Muñiz [73], in which an efficiency notion is
estimated taking into account the relationship between students’ aca­
demic grades, their background and school resources. According to this
criterion, we evaluate whether the student is performing to the best of
their ability. In this sense, most empirical papers attempting to measure
schools’ efficiency usually include some measure of students’ back­
ground, such as family input, together with indicators of human and
physical resources at school ([74] for an early review or [75] for a recent
update).
In our study we consider three input variables. Firstly, the number of
teachers employed in the school (teachers), both permanent and non-
permanent, is selected following the criterion of previous studies (e.g.
Ref. [52,76–79]). Second, we include information on school operational
expenditures (expenses), excluding teachers’ salaries, as a measure for
physical resources in schools ([78,80]). In our case, operating expenses
refer to schools’ structural expenses that guarantee their proper func­
tioning, specifically supplies, cleaning, dining room, etc. In other words,
we do not include a variable as an indicator of capital investment, which
could be endogenous, but rather the operating expenses required to
cover the daily basic needs of schools. In this case, schools do not
negotiate this level of spending as it is set by the competent regional
government according to their size. Finally, the inclusion of students’
background as inputs (usually represented by an indicator to proxy their
socioeconomic status) has been widely discussed in the literature, since
others test both definitions ([83]). In this paper, we use mother’s
9
Scores obtained in the different waves are comparable over time, since the
structure, the content, the response system and the evaluation criteria remained
stable during the analysis period. In academic year 2017/2018 the Evaluation
Council included a fifth competence to assess students’ knowledge of the nat­
ural environment. However, our sample is not affected by this change as this
academic year falls outside our analysis period. We thank one of the anonymous
reviewers for their comment on this point.
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Comparison between Vallès Occidental, Barcelona, Catalonia and Spain. Key figures.
Percentage of immigrant population Family Income (thousands of €)

Vallès Occidental Barcelona Catalonia Spain Vallès Occidental Barcelona Catalonia Spain

2009 12.1% 16.5% 14.9% 12.2% 16.8 20.5 16.7 15.5

2010 12.1% 16.5% 15.0% 12.4% 16.3 19.7 16.2 15.6
2011 11.8% 16.2% 14.7% 12.3% 16.0 19.9 16.1 15.1
2012 11.4% 16.5% 14.7% 12.3% 16.5 20.3 16.5 15.0
2013 11.0% 16.4% 14.3% 11.9% 17.0 20.6 16.8 14.2
2014 10.3% 16.0% 14.5% 10.8% 17.4 20.7 17.0 15.5

GDPpc (thousands of €)

Vallès Occidental Barcelona Catalonia Spain

2009 27.2 26.9 27.9 23.1

2010 26.4 27.0 27.1 23.0
2011 26.6 26.6 27.2 22.8
2012 27.4 25.8 27.8 22.0
2013 28.0 25.8 29.0 21.9
2014 29.3 26.5 30.1 22.2

Source: Spanish National Statistics Institute, INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística)

Table 3 Table 4
Sample decomposition. Definition of variables.
Academic 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/2013 2013/ Label Variable Description Type
year 2010 2011 2012 2014
Output Y Aggregated Aggregated average grade Volume
Students 44,055 45,285 46,831 47,986 47,814 average grade obtained by students in the
Schools 124 124 124 124 124 standardized test
conducted at the end of
Source: the authors. primary education.
Inputs X1 Teachers Number of teachers in the Volume
educational level as a proxy for family input (parental education) and we school, both permanent
and non-permanent
treat it as an input.10 Our decision is justified not only because it satisfies
teachers.
the monotonicity condition (mothers with a higher level of education X2 Expenses Operational expenditure Volume
may have favorable cultural habits that can help their children cultivate (excluding teachers’
study habits which foster their academic achievement, in contrast to salary).
mothers who do not have that cultural habit), but also because the X3 Parental Mother’s average Ratio
education educational level.
literature has revealed that mothers are crucial in determining students’ 0. No education. 1. Primary
academic achievement ([84]). In addition, this variable remains the education. 2. Secondary
same for the student, even if they change from one school to another. education. 3. Professional
Following Hanushek [74,75], we consider it as a kind of family input training (upper secondary)
4. Upper secondary
bearing in mind that not all the inputs in the education production
education (pre-university).
functions are inside the school. Overall, according to Santín and Sicilia 5. Professional training
[85], these three input variables represent the educational inputs (postsecondary). 6. First
required to carry out the learning process: students’ characteristics (raw degree. 7. Postgraduate. 8.
material), teachers (human capital) and public expenditure (physical Doctorate.
Environmental Z1 Educational Percentage of students with Ratio
resources). factors needs educational needs at the
Regarding the variables representing the environment in which the school (autism,
school is operating, we consider three different sources of heterogeneity personality-behavior
at the school level. Specifically, we decided to include information about disorder, psychological or
mental disability, severe
contextual conditions, in terms of schooling, that are imposed to schools
hearing or visual disability,
because they represent characteristics of their student body. Moreover, exceptionally gifted
it is important to note that schools have no control over the students students).
enrolled, as public schools in Spain do not select their student body; Z2 Immigrants Percentage of non-Spanish Ratio
rather, it is imposed by the regional government. We therefore ensure students at the school
Z3 Annual Percentage of student Ratio
absenteeism absences during the
academic year (students
10
absent more than 75% of
Another option would have been to use the professional category of one or all school days)
both parents. However, we rejected this indicator because the measurement
scale for professional categories changed during the period of analysis. In order Source: the authors.
to reduce noise and volatility, we therefore opted to use the mother’s educa­
tional level. Indeed, this indicator is more stable to professional changes due to that there are no self-selection problems in our sample. Where these
the economic crisis, as it is a family input indicator that does not decline if the contextual conditions exist, either additional educational resources may
mother (father) is unemployed as a consequence of the crisis. In other words, be required or school management may be more complex; we therefore
the mother (father) is not a worse mother (father) if she (he) is unemployed; on
the contrary, she (he) will be able to spend more time with their child/children
and dedicate more time to educational tasks. We thank an anonymous reviewer
for raising this point.

8
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
consider that these factors can be treated as exogenous. The variables we
selected are the percentage of students with educational needs (educa­
tional needs), the percentage of immigrants11 (immigrants) and the degree
of absenteeism12 (annual absenteeism).
Table 5 reports the descriptive statistics for all these variables. As can
be seen, students’ scores in the basic skills tests are, on average, higher
than 50 points out of 100. At this educational level, most students
usually pass. Additionally, the number of teachers hired remains stable
up to the school year 2011/2012, where we find a decline, suggesting
that the budgetary constraints during the crisis also affected the number
of teachers employed. The trend for the operational expenditures is
similar, decreasing over the period and recovering slightly at the end.
Parental education is, on average, constant over time, indicating that
more often than not, mothers have a bachelor’s degree or professional
training. With respect to contextual factors, the percentage of students
with special educational needs is lower than 2% during the period of
analysis. Something similar occurs with the level of absenteeism,
although the percentage is slightly higher. The proportion of immigrants
follows a clearly negative trend during the period, although it increases
slightly in the 2013/2014 school year.
During the period of analysis, which coincides with the economic
crisis, the number of immigrants arriving in Spain fell and, in turn, the
crisis led some immigrant families to leave Spain and/or return to their
countries of origin, moving away from high unemployment and a
waning economy. According to the National Statistics Institute, Spain
had a negative migratory balance during the entire crisis period, and
between 2009 and 2013 the census recorded a loss of more than 100,000
immigrants. This fall was reflected in the number of immigrant students
enrolled in schools, since many of these migratory flows involve whole
families. In short, fewer migrants arrived and some left Spain, one
possible net effect being a reduction in the number of immigrant chil­
dren enrolled in schools. However, in the academic year 2013/2014, a
modest increase was observed, possibly indicating that either the chil­
dren of immigrant families already living in Spain had reached school
age, or that immigration to Spain had started to rise again and families
were arriving with school-age children.
5. Empirical results
In this section we present the main results obtained by applying the
11
The proportion of immigrants could have been considered as an input rather
than an environmental factor. However, we consider that it does not meet the
monotonicity criterion, since a higher proportion of immigrant students does
not necessarily mean an improvement in educational performance. In fact,
students from immigrant families tend to perform worse than ‘native’ students,
at least during the first years of schooling. We thank one of the anonymous
reviewers for pointing this out.
12
The degree of absenteeism could also be considered as a bad output, or the
complement (attendance) could even be taken and considered as an input in the
model. However, there are several reasons that justify our decision to consider
it as an environmental factor. The first is due to a technicality of the method­
ology used. In order to reduce the complexity of the mathematical formulation,
our proposed conditional panel data DEA model only requires inputs and
desirable (good) outputs. The second reason has to do with the information
collected by this variable. The degree of absenteeism is a proxy for heteroge­
neity, i.e., ethnic minorities or low-income families usually generate more
absenteeism than medium/high income families, and this is exogenous to
schools. Therefore, it is a variable of complexity in educational management.
Thirdly, we do not consider the inverse of this variable as an input due to the
need to comply with the monotonicity condition not only in terms of “more
input, more output” but also in terms of “more input, better output”. Our output
variable is a measure of the quality of educational results, i.e., average grade in
the homogeneous tests, not about the quantity, i.e., the number of students
passing the tests. Including school attendance as an input does not guarantee
better grades. Obviously, more students will be evaluated, but not for this
reason will the grades be better.
9
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
methodological approach presented in Section 3; that is, the output-
oriented panel data DEA model with selective convexity.13 Firstly, we
show the results for selective time-invariant output-oriented efficiency
scores obtained from the unconditional and conditional panel data DEA
model. Subsequently, we decompose the efficiency scores to show the
time-variant estimates (see Refs. [4] for more details on this estimation).
Then, we complement the long-term efficiency analysis with the results
in terms of convergence, with the objective of determining whether
schools tend to converge and quickly adapt to the budget changes caused
by the financial crisis.
5.1. Long-term efficiency estimates
In this subsection we present the results of the selective output-
oriented panel data DEA model distinguishing between introducing or
not the influence of contextual variables (unconditional vs conditional
model). As can be seen in Table 6, on average, the time-invariant con­
ditional efficiency for the academic years between 2009 and 2014 for
primary schools in Vallès Occidental is 1.38; that is, schools have, on
average, an improvement margin of 38%. In other words, with the same
level of educational resources, and considering their contextual condi­
tions, they should be able to improve student outcomes by that per­
centage (obviously, efficient schools have lower targets while inefficient
schools will be expected to meet more demanding targets). If we
compare this result with the unconditional model, we observe that in­
efficiency is triggered up to 1.50 on average. These results are in line
with those previously obtained in the literature, which confirms that the
inclusion of contextual variables in the efficiency estimation smooths
the results and improves efficiency by restricting the scope of compar­
ison to DMUs with similar conditions to the unit of analysis ([86]).
The following tables show the time-invariant conditional efficiency
scores classified by schools’ complexity level, population size and
market concentration.14
Firstly, we measure the level of schools’ complexity according to the
Catalan Directorate General of Public School Teachers and Staff
(Dirección General de Profesorado y Personal de Centros Públicos). More
complex schools are defined as those located in environments with
especially disadvantaged socio-economic and socio-cultural character­
istics. They account for 25% of schools in Catalonia. Factors that lead to
the classification of a school as especially vulnerable are variables
related to parents (their income level, whether they are unemployed
and/or whether they are national minimum wage workers) and vari­
ables regarding students (number of pupils with late school starting age,
etc.).
Table 7 indicates that the average long-term inefficiency is similar in
schools with lower and higher level of complexity, 1.37 and 1.39
respectively, as confirmed by the Mann-Whitney test (p-value = 0.48).
Although more complex schools are slightly more inefficient, the dif­
ference is not statistically significant. However, as can be seen, both the
standard deviation and the upper quartiles are different in both cate­
gories of schools. Interestingly, the dispersion in the efficiency scores is
13
It is worth noting that the results are shown in terms of inefficiency as the
score goes from 1 to infinite.
14
We also carried out an analysis of the time-invariant efficiency according to
the age of the school. The most inefficient schools are the newest (3.21, on
average) despite having new facilities (electronic whiteboards, better equip­
ment, etc.). We understand that these schools start from zero and face an
important entry barrier: lack of experience in school management. Even if this
is the case, new schools are nevertheless not created at random but are typically
built in areas where the demand has increased, and their students have specific
characteristics (we thank one of the anonymous reviewers for raising this
point). On the other hand, schools with 12 years’ experience are the most
efficient, since they have an improvement margin of just 8.25%. This may show
that schools with considerable experience know how to manage resources more
efficiently in times of crisis.
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
Descriptive statistics of variables included in the analysis.
Variable Label 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Output
Average gradea y Mean 65.82 72.18 72.89 68.36 72.10
SD 9.45 9.95 9.14 8.78 9.03
Inputs
Teachers x1 Mean 27.23 27.81 26.64 23.64 25.21
SD 7.89 7.48 6.78 6.32 6.18
Expenses x2 Mean 10,130.00 10,292.25 8105.84 9827.60 9059.37
SD 2633.43 2691.91 2096.73 2706.16 2212.73
Parental education x3 Mean 4.98 4.49 4.39 4.60 4.90
SD 0.89 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.77
Contextual factors
Educational needs z1 Mean 1.67 1.30 1.19 1.26 1.03
SD 2.08 1.93 1.28 1.93 1.22
Immigrants z2 Mean 12.60 9.99 9.28 6.98 7.73
SD 11.21 9.81 8.60 7.75 8.44
Annual absenteeism z3 Mean 1.40 2.89 2.23 1.64 1.24
SD 2.93 3.03 2.96 2.93 2.87
N 124 124 124 124 124
a
Note that the average grade at school level is shown here for interpretation purposes, instead of the aggregated average grade. In the model we introduce the
aggregated average score as an output.
Source: the authors.

Table 6
Selective time-invariant data panel efficiency scores.
N Min Max 1◦ Quartile Median 3◦ Quartile Mean SD

Conditional model 124 1.00 3.91 1.13 1.24 1.51 1.38 0.42
Unconditional model 124 1.00 4.39 1.16 1.30 1.63 1.50 0.55

Source: the authors

Table 7
Selective time-invariant data panel efficiency scores by complexity.
N Min Max 1◦ Quartile Median 3◦ Quartile Mean SD

Low complexity 124 1.00 3.91 1.13 1.20 1.52 1.37 0.44
High complexity 124 1.00 2.46 1.13 1.28 1.50 1.39 0.37

Source: the authors

greater in schools with less complex school environments, while schools
with more complex environments present a less dispersed distribution of
efficiency (0.44 and 0.37, respectively). In addition to the above, the
beta convergence analysis conducted below in section 5.3 shows that
more inefficient schools experienced greater growth (improvement in
efficiency) than schools with a higher initial level of efficiency
(Table 11). Based on the above empirical evidence, we therefore
consider that complexity matters and our findings suggest that schools
with higher levels of complexity make a great effort to manage their
more diverse student bodies, which brings them closer to the average
level of efficiency of schools in less complex environments.
With respect to the analysis by population size, Table 8 shows that
schools located in rural populations (Pop<5000 inhabitants) are the
most inefficient (2.09, on average) especially due to the difficulties they
face (few students, lower resources, etc.).15
At the other extreme, schools located in populations between 5001
and 10,000 inhabitants are the least inefficient in our sample (1.17, on
average). Despite operating in relatively small municipalities in terms of
population density, we found that these are large schools (measured by
the number of students enrolled in the school) compared to the average
size of schools in our full sample from Vallès Occidental (the average size
of these schools is 400 students compared to an average of 372 students
in Vallès Occidental).
While the above is true, we realize that the number of schools in this
category is very small (only three schools) compared to the largest group
that is represented by schools in municipalities with more than 100,000
inhabitants (55 schools). As can be seen in Table 8, these schools have an
improvement margin of 34% (in line with the average inefficiency found
for the whole sample in Table 6, 38%).
The differences in time-invariant efficiency score by population size
are not significant, as confirmed by the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test
(p-values>0.12 in all cases).
Lastly, in terms of competition, measured through the market con­
centration index, the Herfindahl index,16 it is observed that, in general,
schools with a higher level of competition are less inefficient than those
operating in environments with no competition (Table 9).

15
Another possible source of inefficiency in smaller schools could be the high
structural costs needed to guarantee their proper functioning; these are fixed
costs that all schools incur regardless of their size. In the case of bigger schools
this fixed cost is shared among a larger group of students, while in smaller
schools the relative fixed cost per student is higher, making the school more
inefficient. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for raising this point.
16
The Herfindahl index is the sum of the squared market shares of schools
located in the same municipality (market share is defined as the ratio between
the students in a specific school divided by the total number of students in the
municipality). This index has been used previously in the literature to measure
competition in public education (see Harrison and Rouse [87] and references
within).

10
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 8
Selective time-invariant data panel efficiency scores by population size.
N Min Max 1◦ Quartile Median 3◦ Quartile Mean SD

Pop≥100,001 55 1.00 2.54 1.11 1.20 1.49 1.34 0.37

50,001 ≤ Pop≤100,000 20 1.00 1.65 1.15 1.23 1.31 1.24 0.20
20,001 ≤ Pop≤50,000 31 1.00 2.51 1.16 1.27 1.61 1.39 0.34
10,001 ≤ Pop≤20,000 13 1.08 3.91 1.13 1.29 1.70 1.65 0.81
5001 ≤ Pop≤10,000 3 1.00 1.31 1.10 1.19 1.25 1.17 0.16
Pop≤5000 2 2.03 2.15 2.06 2.09 2.12 2.09 0.08

Source: the authors

Table 9
Selective time-invariant data panel efficiency scores by market concentration.
N Min Max 1◦ Quartile Median 3◦ Quartile Mean SD

Very high concentration (HI ≥ 0.76) 3 1.00 2.15 1.52 2.03 2.09 1.73 0.63
High concentration (0.51 ≤ HI ≤ 0.75) 2 1.19 1.31 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.25 0.08
Moderate concentration (0.26 ≤ HI ≤ 0.5) 8 1.08 3.91 1.18 1.36 1.89 1.78 0.97
Low concentration (0.11 ≤ HI ≤ 0.25) 43 1.00 2.51 1.15 1.27 1.58 1.38 0.34
Very low concentration (HI ≤ 0.1) 68 1.00 2.54 1.11 1.20 1.45 1.31 0.34

Source: the authors

This result is in line with the literature confirming that the public competitive environments, where they hold barely 10% of the market.
education system is not without competition. Hoxby [88] and Barrow
and Rouse [89] note that even without taking into account private or
5.2. Time-variant efficiency estimates
semi-private schools, the public education system would not be devoid
of competition. As Millimet and Collier [90, p.135] conclude “compe­
With the estimation of the time-variant conditional efficiency we can
tition from other public schools is the most remarkable type of compe­
split the time-invariant conditional efficiency reported in Table 6 for
tition in the status quo.” In addition, Hanushek and Rivkin [91] argue
each year in the study period. In this case, we compare the time-variant
that “the most important element of competition comes from other
conditional efficiency computed with stable weights (as stated previ­
public schools.” A substantial body of literature has emerged attempting
ously in Section 3) with an intertemporal (cross-sectional) conditional
to uncover the factors that influence the relationship between compe­
model, which suffers from disregarding the panel data structure.
tition and efficiency in public education (see López-Torres et al. [39] and
Table 10 and Fig. 3 summarize the results of both estimations for the full
references within). As Millimet and Collier state [90], increased
sample.
competition positively impacts on the efficiency of public schooling.
As can be seen, the conditional model and the intertemporal version
Public schools compete mainly to attract students. Given that public
generate similar efficiency scores. However, the intertemporal efficiency
schools cannot engage in price competition, competition between public
schools focuses on attracting and retaining a larger and better student
Table 10
body [92]. Public schools that do not attract students will have their
Time-variant estimates. Comparison selective panel data DEA and intertemporal
resources reduced and teachers may be relocated. In this scenario,
DEA.
Rincke [93] states that public schools in metropolitan areas have
TV conditional panel data DEA model
stronger competition because they are divided into more school dis­
tricts. With more schools available, it is easier for parents to choose a 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/
school that matches their preferences.17 Hoxby [95] also states that “this 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

traditional form of school choice is by far the most pervasive and N 124 124 124 124 124
important form of choice in elementary and secondary schooling today.” Min 0.97 0.91 0.66 0.52 0.77
Max 8.29 4.34 3.17 3.09 4.48
Based on the above evidence, we contend that our result for the case
1◦ 1.38 1.27 1.16 1.21 1.18
of Vallès Occidental supports the hypothesis of a positive relationship Quartile
between efficiency and competition [96] as, on average, schools in more Median 1.58 1.37 1.27 1.37 1.28
competitive environments ( HI ≤ 0.1) are less inefficient than those 3◦ 1.87 1.68 1.44 1.65 1.55
operating in environments with no competition (HI ≥ 0.76) (Table 9 Quartile
Mean 1.83 1.59 1.38 1.45 1.41
reports average inefficiency scores of 1.31 vs. 1.73, respectively). These SD 0.96 0.57 0.38 0.36 0.44
results reinforce the idea that competition stimulates teaching practices
that improve educational results and, therefore, fosters efficiency. Intertemporal conditional DEA Model
Despite the above, we find the lowest level of inefficiency in those
2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/
schools whose market share covers between 51% and 75% of the market 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
(1.25, on average), although these findings correspond to just two
N 124 124 124 124 124
schools in our sample. Most of the schools in our setting operate in Min 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max 3.37 3.02 2.27 4.49 1.99
1◦ 1.26 1.18 1.00 1.09 1.00
Quartile
17
The public education system in Spain does allow parents to freely decide Median 1.45 1.30 1.11 1.23 1.10
from up to 10 schools for their children. After submitting their choices in order 3◦
1.71 1.57 1.21 1.42 1.20
of preference, a set of established criteria determines the final allocation (for Quartile
Mean 1.57 1.45 1.17 1.31 1.14
instance, distance to the school, siblings attending the school, etc.). Interested
SD 0.46 0.45 0.25 0.39 0.17
readers can refer to the paper by Calsamiglia and Güell [94] for more details
about the school choice process in Catalonia. Source: the authors

11
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
Fig. 3. Evolution of time-variant panel data estimates and intertemporal estimatesSource
the authors.
scores are lower (meaning they find less inefficiency) than the panel
ones, which could lead to erroneous conclusions, since a school may
seem less inefficient with a cross-sectional estimation than with one that
takes into account the panel structure of the data. Here we observe the
importance of maintaining the consistency of the weights in the long
run. The intertemporal approach artificially reduces the inefficiency by
annually modifying the importance (weight) assigned to each variable,
so the volatility of the shadow weights of the variables is considerably
higher. For their part, the panel data estimations define a stable set of
weights for the complete time period under assessment. This reduces the
volatility of the valuation of virtual outputs and inputs by considering
not just a specific year, but the aggregated magnitudes in the long run.
This temporal consistency on the weights implies increases in the in­
efficiency score estimates for specific years as long as their input and
output mix does not coincide with that corresponding to the aggregated
levels.
To better explain this fact, we graphically observe that the panel data
DEA model estimates efficiency scores that are more stable, smoothed
and robust to random shocks such as the economic crisis. In contrast, we
observe more volatility over time with intertemporal estimates. When
we want to compare important phenomena over time (such as the eco­
nomic crisis and the consequent cuts in public resources), the panel
estimates are more robust than the intertemporal estimates, which
introduce more volatility and noise into the results. This could lead to
misinterpretations, since intertemporal DEA estimates do not take into
account the panel structure of the data and could hide the lack of con­
sistency of the yearly movements, as they consider weights for which the
DMU appears more efficient, and these weights are different every year.
However, the panel data DEA model takes into account a stable structure
Fig. 4. Evolution of efficiency scores according to the level of complexitySource
the authors.
12
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
and it offers consistent efficiency indexes over time, using stable weights
for inputs and outputs. In other words, the intertemporal DEA estima­
tion hides inefficiency by generating temporal inconsistency on the
input and output weights; that is, the negative effect of the crisis on
inefficiency is underestimated when the analyst uses the standard
intertemporal DEA models.
If we disaggregate the time-variant estimates according to schools’
complexity, number of inhabitants in the municipality and degree of
market concentration, we find that the general conclusion does not
change; that is, the intertemporal model hides inefficiency in all the
cases.
As an example, Fig. 4 presents the evolution of efficiency scores ac­
cording to the level of schools’ complexity (difficulty of management).
As can be seen, the previous trend holds; that is, the conditional model
with panel data shows more inefficiency than the intertemporal DEA
model, regardless of the level of schools’ complexity. We can also
confirm that, in both estimates, schools with a higher level of complexity
are more inefficient than those with a lower level of complexity
throughout the period.
However, the graph shows a very interesting phenomenon that will
later be reinforced with the study of convergence and, at the same time,
it leads us to confirm that the estimates of the conditional panel data
DEA are more robust than those obtained by intertemporal analysis. As
can be seen, there is convergence in the efficiency scores obtained with
the selective conditional panel data DEA between 2009 and 2011, and
between schools with higher and lower level of complexity. From 2012
onwards, schools began to diverge in levels of efficiency, confirming that
not all of them are able to manage the available resources in time of
crisis since schools with less complexity became less inefficient (this
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
same conclusion is obtained with the β-convergence test for the full
sample). In contrast, the intertemporal DEA estimates do not reflect this
trend; rather the opposite is found as the efficiency indexes show greater
convergence at the end, the opposite conclusion to that obtained in the
convergence analysis (p-value = 0.106, if we compare 2013 with 2012).
Finally, as we concluded before in Table 9, the least inefficient
schools are those operating in more competitive environments. This
trend is supported by the time-variant estimates, regardless of the model
used (panel data or intertemporal) (Fig. 5).
This finding confirms the existence of competition in the public ed­
ucation sector and shows it is beneficial, as schools strive to improve the
way they manage educational resources to foster student outcomes ([38,
96]). For the cases of low and very low concentration, the trend to
improve the level of efficiency in the first years of the crisis holds, a sign
that schools are quickly adjusting to a lower available budget. The
opposite occurs for those schools operating in more concentrated envi­
ronments (moderate and very high concentration) whose inefficiency
score rose considerably from 2011 onwards with the panel data esti­
mation, while the intertemporal model shows an improvement, hiding
Fig. 5. Evolution of the efficiency score according to the level of market concentrationSource
the authors.
13
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
the reality.
In summary, we can conclude that we find relatively high in­
efficiency over the period. However, in times of crisis, schools that
operate in a more stable environment (low complexity), and with the
pressure of competition around them, tend to improve their manage­
ment efficiency due to the use of tight measures to control public
spending. Schools may also improve their efficiency when faced with
possible penalization, by the government, in the form of closure for
inefficient management of spending. This possibility is highlighted in
López-Torres and Prior [97], who stated that during academic year
2012/2013 seven schools were closed in Catalonia and plans were made
to cut 73 school groups due to lack of resources.
5.3. Dynamics of efficiency: patterns of convergence
Once the results for efficiency have been obtained by applying the
selective conditional output-oriented panel data DEA model, the next
step is to explore the patterns of convergence in efficiency scores.
β-convergence ([15,16]) establishes a relationship between the variable
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
of interest (efficiency) with respect to the initial period considered
(2009 in this study). The goal is to study whether the most inefficient
schools in the first period experience greater growth (improvement)
than schools with the highest initial level of efficiency. Thus, if the β
coefficient is negative and statistically significant, we confirm the exis­
tence of convergence, while if the relationship is positive there is
divergence. The regression function to calculate the β-convergence is
shown above in equation [10]. Let us note at this point that there are two
options regarding the reference period. First, and following the main
line of analysis of the paper, we set 2009 as the baseline period, as 2009
represents one year before the beginning of the economic recession.
Therefore, we proceeded to calculate the β-convergence in every period
with respect to the base year. Second, we ran the test for each year with
respect to the previous one in order to find additional evidence of
convergence from one year to the next one. The results of the
β-convergence are shown below in Table 11.
In this case, we used the results obtained from applying the selective
conditional output-oriented time-variant panel data DEA model. We first
ran the test considering 2009/2010 as the baseline year and then with
respect to the previous academic year.
In both cases convergence is shown; that is to say, the most ineffi­
cient schools in the first period of analysis (2009/2010) experienced
greater growth than schools with a higher initial level of efficiency. This
occurs regardless of whether we take into account the base year (2009/
2010) as a reference or if we take the year before. Therefore, another
possible explanation for the improvement in efficiency is the existence of
convergence in efficiency scores due to the schools’ efforts to make
better use of available resources during the period of crisis. In this sense,
our results strongly support the hypothesis of convergence among
Catalan schools during the crisis. Additionally, we confirm that
convergence is greater over time, reinforcing the idea of improving ef­
ficiency at the end of crisis.
With respect to σ -convergence, which represents the estimate of
cross-sectional dispersion and indicates the speed with which the level
of efficiency of a school converges with the average of all schools in the
same period, Table 12 reports the results for the model considered in
equation [11].
The results for the σ -convergence test substantiate convergence; that
is, low-efficiency schools in the first period converge with the average
efficiency score faster than the rest of the sample. As Table 12 shows, the
dispersion of the efficiency index dropped by 16.8% from 0.336 in
2009/2010 to 0.280 in 2010/2011, and the trend was similar in the
following period, with a sharper descent in 2011/2012 (− 17.7%) fol­
lowed by a slight decrease in the rest of the period. Therefore, the fastest
period of convergence was the academic year 2011/2012, coinciding
with the year of the harshest budget cuts due to the economic crisis. This
reinforces the idea that in times of crisis when control of public spending
is greater, schools tend to improve their management efficiency by
optimizing the use of the resources they have.
Linking these results with the levels of efficiency obtained in sections
5.1 and 5.2, it is confirmed that the academic year 2011/2012 was the
Table 11
β-convergence coefficients (time-variant efficiency model).
Considering 09/10 as the baseline
10/11 with 11/12 with 12/13 with 13/14 with
respect to 09/ respect to 09/ respect to 09/ respect to 09/
10 10 10 10
β-coefficient − 0.271*** − 0.492*** − 0.658*** − 0.776***
Considering the previous academic year
10/11 with 11/12 with 12/13 with 13/14 with
respect to respect to respect to respect to
09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
β-coefficient − 0.271*** − 0.286*** − 0.203*** − 0.137
Note: ***, **, and *: below 1%, 5% and 10% statistical significance thresholds,
respectively.
Source: the authors.
14
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 12
σ-convergence coefficients (time-variant efficiency model).
σ 2009/ σ 2010/ σ 2011/ σ 2012/ σ 2013/
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
σ-coefficient 0.336 0.280 0.231 0.229 0.227
Change in σ − 0.168 − 0.177 − 0.006 − 0.009
Source: the authors.
period in which all schools significantly converged and improved their
efficiency (values closer to 1 in the scores) in order to comply with the
new public budget restrictions and continue to provide education to the
best of their ability, despite having fewer public resources. By contrast,
in 2012/2013 the levels of convergence slowed down, which may be due
to the fact that some schools are inefficient at this stage, a sign that not
all of them adapted to the change in the level of resources available to
efficiently support their educational management over time. However,
in 2013/2014 we again see a modest improvement in efficiency levels
along with a trend to convergence, although it is very low. This could be
interpreted as a first sign of recovery, which has a positive effect on the
efficiency of educational management.
5.4. Robustness check
The specification of the variables in an empirical model is a crucial
aspect, not only because it conditions the functioning of the model, but
also because it is essential to correctly define the production function
behind it. In the case of efficiency in the education literature, it is true
that there is no consensus regarding the classification of some types of
variables, such as the case of the socio-economic status of families.
Indeed, some papers consider it as an input variable, and others as an
environmental factor (see Ref. [8] for a review). Our perspective, in line
with our earlier explanation in Section 4.2, is to consider our variable
parental education as an input variable in the conditional DEA model
with panel data, following Hanushek [75].
Nevertheless, we consider that it is worth testing what would happen
with our results if we changed the definition of the model and consid­
ered this variable as a contextual factor.18 Therefore, we re-estimated
the model by changing the consideration of the input parental educa­
tion (x3) to consider it as an environmental factor (z4) that is beyond the
school’s control, as we did with annual absenteeism, immigrants and stu­
dents with special educational needs. In this model (labeled new model),
which serves as a robustness check, the criterion for considering these
variables as contextual factors is consistent and everything that is
outside the school’s control is considered an environmental factor.
Despite the above, we must recognize that the definition of the educa­
tional production function under this scenario is limited to inputs that
are exclusively inside, not outside, the school, an aspect that assumes a
clear limitation of reality. In line with Hanushek [75] not all the inputs
in the education production function are inside the school. The findings
are summarized below.
First of all, Table 13 reports the results obtained for the time-
invariant conditional efficiency. Compared with the original results in
Table 6, it is evident that the change in the model leads to a change in the
efficiency estimates. We observe that the time-invariant efficiency
scores change in both estimations, unconditional and conditional and,
overall, we find more inefficiency in the new model. However, the
efficient units remain the same, except for one school in the sample in
the case of the conditional estimation. In short, the efficient frontier is
essentially composed of the same DMUs. This finding reinforces the
results obtained with the original model.
Additionally, we observe the same trend in the results when
comparing the conditional and the unconditional estimations. As in the
18
We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for the suggestion on this point.
L. López-Torres and D. Prior Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 13 Table 15
Time-invariant data panel efficiency scores with the new model. Time-variant efficiency estimates (new model).
Desc. stat. Unconditional efficiency Conditional efficiency 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
N 124 124
Min 1.00 1.00 N 124 124 124 124 124
Max 4.39 3.82 Min 0.58 0.91 0.59 0.81 0.76
1◦ Quartile 1.19 1.16 Max 9.23 5.24 4.02 4.44 6.34
Median 1.35 1.29 1◦ 1.31 1.20 1.11 1.14 1.13
3◦ Quartile 1.66 1.56 Quartile
Mean 1.57 1.45 Median 1.52 1.33 1.23 1.29 1.24
SD 0.63 0.50 3◦ 1.98 1.69 1.40 1.61 1.49
Quartile
Source: the authors. Mean 1.88 1.62 1.39 1.45 1.43
SD 1.27 0.72 0.51 0.54 0.67
original model, the inefficiency is higher in the unconditional estima­ Source: the authors.
tion, 1.57 on average, compared to 1.45.
In order to confirm whether the results are significantly different or
not, we ran the nonparametric Wilcoxon and Li tests to allow the Table 16
equality of two distributions to be tested. In the two cases, the null hy­ Non-parametric tests results for time-variant data panel efficiency scores. P-
pothesis assumes equality of distribution in the two samples. The p- values.
values of the tests for the case of time invariant efficiency scores are Test Conditional efficiency estimation (original vs new)
presented in Table 14.
Wilcoxon 0.11
As can be seen from Table 14, the p-values are not significant in any Li 0.10
case. Therefore, the null hypothesis of equality of distributions cannot
Source: the authors.
be rejected. This shows that our results from the original efficiency
model are robust and do not significantly change, even if we change the
definition of the model. numbers, support services and operating expenses. Besides these budget
Moving on to the results of the new model for the case of the time- constraints, the obvious question is to determine their social impacts on
variant efficiency scores, we reach similar conclusions. Table 15 sum­ the welfare of population. On the one hand, we can expect regressions in
marizes the results. the levels of equity and the principle of equal opportunities (as expen­
As before with the time-invariant efficiency score, we find that the diture on public education in Catalonia is far below the Spanish average,
change in the definition of the model leads to a change in the time- occupying the 14th position out of 17 Spanish regions). On the other
variant efficiency estimates. Again, we find more inefficiency in the hand, harsh budget constraints can have an undesirable internal impact
new model, on average, compared with the original results showed in when distributions of inefficiency tend to diverge as a result of the
Table 10 (upper panel). In spite of this, the p-values of the two tests are asymmetric impact of the budget restrictions. In this study we focused
not statistically significant (Table 16), ensuring that the distribution of on the second issue, determining whether convergence or divergence in
the two estimations is not different. the distributions of efficiency is related to cuts in the public budgets.
Therefore, considering all of the above, we can conclude that the From the methodological perspective, this objective required us to
results are robust despite modifying the specification of one of the operate with robust estimations of efficiency scores, to ensure we control
variables. those factors that can introduce noise into the assessment, without
In view of the results of the re-estimated model, we prefer to continue providing any additional information (such as, for instance, the yearly
working with the original model, not only due to the absence of sig­ change in the inputs and output weights). This can be guaranteed by the
nificant differences in the efficiency results, but also because the original use of the panel data DEA model in its two variants: the time invariant
model considers a more complete educational production function that and the time variant models. Indeed, by introducing stability in the
is closer to reality, in line with Hanushek [75]. Additionally, and weights of inputs and outputs, panel data DEA estimations assure ab­
methodologically speaking, the original model considers the possibility solute comparability of the efficiency scores, and this helps to clarify the
of including variables in absolute and relative terms following the se­ dynamic analysis of efficiency in order to observe the existent patterns of
lective convexity approach of Olesen et al. [5], which represents a clear convergence.
advantage for future implementations of the models in other samples One important issue to control when we want to obtain comparable
and contexts. results in terms of schools’ efficiency is the impact of external or
contextual factors. Here, previous research clearly indicates that effi­
6. Conclusions ciency scores are dependent on the school’s specific environment. To
control for this, in the methods section we have defined a new condi­
This paper analyzes schools’ efficiency in a context of financial crisis. tional panel data DEA model. This new proposal avoids unacceptable
The immediate result of the financial crisis was the severe impact in and unbalanced comparisons of schools that operate in different envi­
terms of budget restrictions for all public sector bodies ([98]). In our ronmental conditions. Another theoretical contribution is related to the
case study (budget restrictions in Catalan public schools between 2009 objective of making an assessment operative when some variables are
and 2014) these restrictions implied sharp reductions in teacher expressed in volume, but other are expressed in ratio terms. To provide
an acceptable solution for this problem, a selective convexity panel data
DEA model was also developed.
Table 14 The empirical section makes an assessment of the long-run efficiency
Non-parametric tests for time-invariant efficiency scores (p-values). of 124 Catalan primary schools for the period 2009–2014 (generating a
database with 620 school/year units). The results provide evidence of
Test Unconditional efficiency Conditional efficiency
estimation (original vs new) estimation (original vs new) convergence in the efficiency distributions, indicating that differences
among efficient and inefficient schools are reduced over time. These
Wilcoxon 0.2695 0.1450
Li 0.2187 0.1205 results reflect the schools’ efforts to make better use of available re­
sources during the crisis period. Therefore, as highlighted by previous
Source: the authors.

15
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
literature (see for instance Refs. [99,100]), budget constraints are
effective tools to reduce differences in terms of efficiency. This is what,
after applying all the methodological controls, provided our estimations.
Two basic questions remain unanswered. Firstly, what impact did
these budget constraints have in terms of equity and the principle of
equal opportunities? To explore this question, the sample would have to
be expanded to include a control group of schools that was not exposed
to these severe operational conditions, which would not be possible in
the Spanish context. In this case, and complementarily to the efficiency
analysis, additional research methods, such as impact evaluation tech­
niques, would be needed. The second logical extension of this study is to
determine the impact of the budget constraints in terms of innovations
and technical change, which also requires additional methodological
tools that are beyond the scope of this paper but that, of course, can be
explored in the future. Our expectations on these two issues are rather
pessimistic but, as social researchers, we first need to find empirical
evidence of the phenomenon under scrutiny before providing any
acceptable explanation of the facts.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Laura López-Torres: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Resources, Writing - original draft, Visualization.
Diego Prior: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Funding acquisition.
Acknowledgements and funding
The authors are grateful to the Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sis­
tema Educatiu for providing the data. This work was financially sup­
ported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [ECO2017-
88241-R].
References
[1] Surroca J, Prior D, Tribo Gine JA. Using panel data DEA to measure CEOs’ focus
of attention: an application to the study of cognitive group membership and
performance. Strat Manag J 2016;37(2):370–88.
[2] Tulkens H, Vanden Eeckaut P. Non-parametric efficiency, progress and regress
measures for panel data: methodological aspects. Eur J Oper Res 1995;80(3):
474–99.
[3] Cullinane K, Wang T. The efficiency analysis of container port production using
DEA panel data approaches. Spectrum 2010;32(3):717–38.
[4] Pérez-López G, Prior D, Zafra-Gómez JL. Temporal scale efficiency in DEA panel
data estimations. An application to the solid waste disposal service in Spain.
Omega 2018;76(4):18–27.
[5] Olesen OB, Petersen NC, Podinovski VV. Efficiency analysis with ratio measures.
Eur J Oper Res 2015;245(2):446–62.
[6] OECD. Government at a glance. https://doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-en;
2017.
[7] Hollingsworth B. The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care
delivery. Health Econ 2008;17(10):1107–28.
[8] De Witte K, López-Torres L. Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a
way forward. J Oper Res Soc 2017;68(4):339–63.
[9] Narbón-Perpiñá I, De Witte K. Local governments’ efficiency: a systematic
literature review—part I. Int Trans Oper Res 2018;25(2):431–68.
[10] Narbón-Perpiñá I, De Witte K. Local governments’ efficiency: a systematic
literature review—part II. Int Trans Oper Res 2018;25(4):1107–36.
[11] Spanish Ministry of Education. Figures of education in Spain. School year 2013-
2014. Centro de Publicaciones. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; 2016.
http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:c8143066-8e16-4e16-b0b2-be9366e
d0744/resultados-ing.pdf.
[12] Asmild M, Hollingsworth B, Birch S. The scale efficiency of hospitals: one size
does not fit all. J Prod Anal 2013;40(2):197–206.
[13] Guccio C, Martorana MF, Mazza I. Efficiency assessment and convergence in
teaching and research in Italian public universities. Scientometrics 2016;107(3):
1063–94.
[14] Guccio C, Martorana MF, Monaco L. Evaluating the impact of the Bologna Process
on the efficiency convergence of Italian universities: a non-parametric frontier
approach. J Prod Anal 2016;45(3):275–98.
[15] Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X, Blanchard OJ, Hall RE. Convergence across states and
regions. Brookings Pap Econ Activ 1991;91(1):107–82.
[16] Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X. Convergence. J Polit Econ 1992;100(2):223–51.
[17] Agasisti T, Dal Bianco A. Reforming the university sector: effects on teaching
efficiency—evidence from Italy. High Educ 2009;57(4):477–98.
16
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
[18] Agasisti T, Pohl C. Comparing German and Italian public universities:
convergence or divergence in the higher education landscape? Manag Decis Econ
2012;33(2):71–85.
[19] Worthington AC. An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement
techniques in education. Educ Econ 2001;9(3):245–68.
[20] Johnes J. Efficiency measurement. In: Johnes G, Johnes J, editors. The
international handbook on the economics of education. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar; 2004. p. 613–742.
[21] Emrouznejad A, Parker BR, Tavares G. Evaluation of research in efficiency and
productivity: a survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in
DEA. Soc Econ Plann Sci 2010;42(3):151–7.
[22] Emrouznejad A, Yang GL. A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly
literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Soc Econ Plann Sci 2018;61:4–8.
[23] Hanushek EA. Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational
production functions. J Hum Resour 1979;14(3):351–88.
[24] Hanushek EA. The economics of schooling: production and efficiency in public
schools. J Econ Lit 1986;24(3):1141–77.
[25] Hanushek EA. The failure of input-based schooling policies. Econom J 2003;113
(485):F64–98.
[26] Mancebón MJ, Bandrés E. Efficiency evaluation in secondary schools: the key role
of model specification and of ex post analysis of results. Educ Econ 1999;7(2):
131–52.
[27] Bessent A, Bessent W. Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through
data envelopment analysis. Educ Adm Q 1980;16(2):57–75.
[28] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rodhes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units. Eur J Oper Res 1978;2(6):429–44.
[29] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rodhes E. Evaluating program and managerial
efficiency: an application of Data Envelopment Analysis to program Follow
through. Manag Sci 1981;27(6):668–97.
[30] Bessent A, Bessent W, Kennington J, Reagan B. An application of mathematical
programming to assess managerial efficiency in the Houston independent school
district. Manag Sci 1982;28(12):1355–67.
[31] Simar L, Wilson PW. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric
models of production processes. J Econom 2007;136(1):31–64.
[32] Daraio C, Simar L. Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier
models: a probabilistic approach. J Prod Anal 2005;24(1):93–121.
[33] Daraio C, Simar L. Advanced robust and nonparametric methods in efficiency
analysis. Methodology and applications. New York: Springer; 2007.
[34] Cherchye L, De Witte K, Ooghe E, Nicaise I. Efficiency and equity in private and
public education: a nonparametric comparison. Eur J Oper Res 2010;202(2):
563–73.
[35] Haelermans C, De Witte K. The role of innovations in secondary school
performance: evidence from a conditional efficiency model. Eur J Oper Res 2012;
223(2):541–9.
[36] De Witte K, Kortelainen M. What explains performance of students in a
heterogeneous environment? Conditional efficiency estimation with continuous
and discrete environmental variables. Appl Econ 2013;45(17):2401–12.
[37] López-Torres L, Prior D. Should we charge environmental factors for poor
students’ achievement? Appl Econ Lett 2015;22(17):1378–81.
[38] Cordero JM, Santín D, Simancas R. Assessing European primary school
performance through a conditional nonparametric model. J Oper Res Soc 2017;68
(4):364–76.
[39] López-Torres L, Nicolini R, Prior D. Does strategic interaction affect demand for
school places? A conditional efficiency approach. Reg Sci Urban Econ 2017;65(7):
89–103.
[40] Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE. The economic theory of index numbers
and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica 1982;50
(6):1393–414.
[41] Färe R, Grosskopf S, Roos P. Malmquist productivity indexes: a survey of theory
and practice. In: Index numbers: essays in honour of sten malmquist. Springer;
1998. p. 127–90.
[42] Grosskopf S. Some remarks on productivity and its decompositions. J Prod Anal
2003;20(3):459–74.
[43] Bjurek H, Førsund F, Hjalmarsson L. Malmquist productivity indices: an empirical
investigation. In: Fäare R, Grosskopf S, Russell R, editors. Index numbers: essays
in honour of sten malmquist. Boston: Kluwer; 1998. p. 217–39.
[44] Bjurek H. The Malmquist total factor productivity index. Scand J Econ 1996;98
(2):303–13.
[45] Arjomandi A, Salleh MI, Mohammadzadeh A. Measuring productivity change in
higher education: an application of Hicks–Moorsteen total factor productivity
index to Malaysian public universities. J Asia Pac Econ 2015;20(4):630–43.
[46] Aparicio J, López-Torres L, Santín D. Economic crisis and public education. A
productivity analysis using a Hicks-Moorsteen index. Econ Modell 2018;71(4):
34–44.
[47] Cazals C, Florens JP, Simar L. Non-parametric frontier estimation: a robust
approach. J Econom 2002;106(1):1–25.
[48] Bădin L, Daraio C, Simar L. Explaining inefficiency in nonparametric production
models: the state of the art. Ann Oper Res 2014;214(1):5–30.
[49] Podinovski VV. Selective convexity in DEA models. Eur J Oper Res 2005;161(2):
552–63.
[50] Bonaccorsi A, Daraio C, Simar L. Advanced indicators of productivity of
universitiesAn application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data.
Scientometrics 2006;66(2):389–410.
[51] De Witte K, Rogge N. Accounting for exogenous influences in performance
evaluations of teachers. Econ Educ Rev 2011;30(4):641–53.
L. López-Torres and D. Prior
[52] Haelermans C, De Witte K, Blank JLT. On the allocation of resources for
secondary schools. Econ Educ Rev 2012;31(5):575–86.
[53] De Witte K, Rogge N, Cherchye L, Van Puyenbroeck T. Economies of scope in
research and teaching: a non-parametric investigation. Omega 2013;41(2):
305–14.
[54] Bădin L, Daraio C, Simar L. Optimal bandwidth selection for conditional
efficiency measures: a data-driven approach. Eur J Oper Res 2010;201(2):
633–40.
[55] Racine JS, Li Q. Nonparametric estimation of regression functions with both
categorical and continuous data. J Econom 2004;119(1):99–130.
[56] Hall P, Racine JS, Li Q. Cross-validation and the estimation of conditional
probability densities. J Am Stat Assoc 2004;99(468):1015–26.
[57] Li Q, Racine J. Nonparametric econometrics: theory and practice. Princeton:
Princeton University Press; 2007.
[58] Weill L. Convergence in banking efficiency across European countries. J Int
Financ Mark Inst Money 2009;19(5):818–33.
[59] Casu B, Girardone C. Integration and efficiency convergence in EU banking
markets. Omega 2010;38(5):260–7.
[60] Zhang T, Matthews K. Efficiency convergence properties of Indonesian banks
1992–2007. Appl Financ Econ 2012;22(17):1465–78.
[61] Ayadi R, Boussemart J, Leleu H, Saidane D. Mergers and acquisitions in European
banking higher productivity or better synergy among business lines? J Prod Anal
2013;39(2):165–75.
[62] Degl’Innocenti M, Kourtzidis S, Sevic Z, Tzeremes NG. Bank productivity growth
and convergence in the European Union during the financial crisis. J Bank
Finance 2017;75(2):184–99.
[63] Guccio C, Martorana MF, Monaco L. Evaluating the impact of the Bologna Process
on the efficiency convergence of Italian universities: a non-parametric frontier
approach. J Prod Anal 2015;45(3):275–98.
[64] Kumar S, Russell R. Technological change, technological catch-up, and capital
deepening: relative contributions to growth and convergence. Am Econ Rev 2002;
92(3):527–48.
[65] Krueger AB, Lindahl M. Education for growth: why and for whom. J Econ Lit
2001;39(4):1101–36.
[66] Prior D, Surroca J. Performance measurement and achievable targets for public
hospitals. J Account Audit Finance 2010;25(4):749–65.
[67] Andersen P, Petersen NC. A procedure for ranking efficient units in data
envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 1993;39(10):1261–4.
[68] Wilson PW. Detecting outliers in deterministic nonparametric frontier models
with multiple outputs. J Bus Econ Stat 1993;11(3):319–23.
[69] Simar L. Detecting outliers in frontier models: a simple approach. J Prod Anal
2003;20(3):391–424.
[70] Chen WC, Johnson AL. A unified model for detecting efficient and inefficient
outliers in data envelopment analysis. Comput Oper Res 2010;37(2):417–25.
[71] Aparicio J, Cordero JM, Ortiz L. Measuring efficiency in education: the influence
of imprecision and variability in data on DEA estimates. Soc Econ Plann Sci 2019;
68:100698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2019.03.004.
[72] Hoxby CM. The effects of class size on student achievement: new evidence from
population variation. Q J Econ 2000;115(4):1239–85.
[73] Mancebón MJ, Muñiz MA. Private versus public high schools in Spain:
disentangling managerial and programme efficiencies. J Oper Res Soc 2008;59
(7):892–901.
[74] Hanushek EA. Educational production functions. In: Economics of education.
Research and studies. Pergamon; 1987. p. 33–42.
[75] Hanushek EA. Education production functions. In: The economics of education.
Academic Press; 2020. p. 161–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-
8.00013-6.
[76] Cordero JM, Pedraja F, Santín D. Enhancing the inclusion of non-discretionary
inputs in DEA. J Oper Res Soc 2010;61(4):574–84.
[77] Thieme C, Prior D, Tortosa-Ausina E. A multilevel decomposition of school
performance using robust nonparametric frontier techniques. Econ Educ Rev
2013;32(1):104–21.
[78] Brennan S, Haelermans C, Ruggiero J. Nonparametric estimation of education
productivity incorporating nondiscretionary inputs with an application to Dutch
schools. Eur J Oper Res 2014;234(3):809–18.
17
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
[79] Essid H, Ouellette P, Vigeant S. Productivity, efficiency, and technical change of
Tunisian schools: a bootstrapped Malmquist approach with quasi-fixed inputs.
Omega 2014;42(1):88–97.
[80] Agasisti T. The efficiency of public spending on education: an empirical
comparison of EU countries. Eur J Educ 2014;49(4):543–57.
[81] Ruggiero J, Vitaliano DF. Assessing the efficiency of public schools using data
envelopment analysis and frontier regression. Contemp Econ Pol 1999;17(3):
321–31.
[82] Crespo-Cebada E, Pedraja F, Santín D. Does school ownership matter? An
unbiased efficiency comparison for regions of Spain. J Prod Anal 2014;41(1):
153–72.
[83] Queiroz MVAB, Sampaio RMB, Sampaio LMB. Dynamic efficiency of primary
education in Brazil: socioeconomic and infrastructure influence on school
performance. Soc Econ Plann Sci 2019;70:100738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seps.2019.100738.
[84] Kong W-H, Fu T-T. Assessing the performance of business colleges in Taiwan
using Data Envelopment Analysis and student based value-added performance
indicators. Omega 2012;40(5):541–9.
[85] Santín D, Sicilia G. Measuring the efficiency of public schools in Uruguay: main
drivers and policy implications. Latin American Economic Review 2015;24(1):
1–28.
[86] Cordero JM, Polo C, Santín D, Simancas R. Efficiency measurement and cross-
country differences among schools: a robust conditional nonparametric analysis.
Econ Modell 2018;74(8):45–60.
[87] Harrison J, Rouse P. Competition and public high school performance. Soc Econ
Plann Sci 2014;48(1):10–9.
[88] Hoxby CM. Does competition among public schools benefit students and
taxpayers? Am Econ Rev 2000;90(5):1209–38.
[89] Barrow L, Rouse CE. Using market valuation to assess public school spending.
J Publ Econ 2004;88(9–10):1747–69.
[90] Millimet DL, Collier T. Efficiency in public schools: does competition matter?
J Econom 2008;145(1–2):134–57.
[91] Hanushek EA, Rivkin SG. Does public school competition affect teacher quality?
In: Hoxby CM, editor. The economics of school choice. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press; 2003. p. 23–47.
[92] Zanzig BR. Measuring the impact of competition in local government education
markets on the cognitive achievement of students. Econ Educ Rev 1997;16(4):
431–44.
[93] Rincke J. Competition in the public school sector: evidence on strategic
interaction among US schools districts. J Urban Econ 2006;59(3):352–69.
[94] Calsamiglia C, Güell M. Priorities in school choice: the case of the Boston
mechanism in Barcelona. J Publ Econ 2018;163:20–36.
[95] Hoxby CM. School choice and school competition: evidence from the United
States. Swed Econ Pol Rev 2003;10(2):9–66.
[96] Agasisti T. How competition affects schools’ performances: does specification
matter? Econ Lett 2011;110(3):259–61.
[97] López-Torres L, Prior D. Centralized allocation of human resources. An
application to public schools. Comput Oper Res 2016;73(9):104–14.
[98] Martínez-Campillo A, Fernández-Santos Y. The impact of the economic crisis on
the (in) efficiency of public Higher Education institutions in Southern Europe: the
case of Spanish universities. Soc Econ Plann Sci 2020;71:100771. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seps.2019.100771.
[99] Grosskopf S, Hayes KJ, Taylor LL, Weber WL. Budget-constrained frontier
measures of fiscal equality and efficiency in schooling. Rev Econ Stat 1997;79(1):
116–24.
[100] Biørn E, Hagen TP, Iversen T, Magnussen J. The effect of activity-based financing
on hospital efficiency: a panel data analysis of DEA efficiency scores 1992–2000.
Health Care Manag Sci 2003;6(4):271–83.
Laura López-Torres is assistant professor at the Department of Economics and Business
(University of Alcala, Spain). Her main research interests fall at the intersection between
economics of education and efficiency and productivity analysis.
Diego Prior is full professor at the Department of Business (Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona, Spain). His research interests are efficiency and productivity analysis, research
in financial accounting and management in the public sector.