Table 2: Stochastic Production Frontier and Technical Efficiency Estimates
One Step MLE |
Fertilizer Endog. |
Two Step |
Linear Prod. Fun | |||||
coeff. |
t-stat |
coeff. |
t-stat |
coeff. |
t-stat |
coeff. |
t-stat | |
Production Frontier | ||||||||
constant |
4.5707 |
45.32 |
4.3215 |
87.55 |
4.6099 |
79.46 |
3.6076 |
19.59 |
land |
0.4941 |
25.37 |
0.5022 |
38.45 |
0.4592 |
37.15 |
0.4281 |
16.59 |
labor |
0.2094 |
15.17 |
0.1780 |
18.17 |
0.2417 |
28.01 |
0.3175 |
20.64 |
fertilizer |
0.0780 |
8.64 |
0.0782 |
52.59 |
0.0759 |
13.29 |
0.0861 |
7.59 |
seeds |
0.1448 |
9.38 |
0.2067 |
24.03 |
0.1606 |
19.38 |
0.1888 |
10.16 |
machines |
0.0624 |
14.54 |
0.1838 |
7.98 |
0.1166 |
4.47 |
0.1788 |
5.88 |
chemicals |
0.0792 |
2.86 |
0.0561 |
16.42 |
0.0599 |
18.35 |
0.0662 |
13.02 |
bullocks |
-0.0104 |
-0.96 |
0.0399 |
4.29 |
-0.0002 |
-0.02 |
0.0848 |
6.77 |
irrigation |
0.2132 |
5.90 |
0.3702 |
13.72 |
0.1912 |
6.82 |
0.0596 |
1.48 |
Efficiency Equation | ||||||||
constant |
4.1910 |
3.72 |
6.4290 |
3.88 |
0.5100 |
16.76 | ||
land owned - paddy |
0.1290 |
5.22 |
0.2433 |
8.12 |
0.0033 |
2.08 |
0.0148 |
1.31 |
land owned - highland |
0.1037 |
4.86 |
0.0076 |
0.13 |
0.0014 |
1.70 |
0.0066 |
1.53 |
household size |
-0.0540 |
-2.50 |
-0.0346 |
-0.57 |
-0.0012 |
-1.14 |
-0.0065 |
-1.04 |
male adults (%) |
-1.5427 |
-3.44 |
-0.7295 |
-0.97 |
0.0078 |
0.66 |
0.0503 |
0.72 |
female adults (%) |
-0.6098 |
-1.28 |
-0.0605 |
-0.07 |
0.0138 |
1.08 |
-0.0106 |
-0.14 |
ethnic group |
1.1951 |
1.91 |
0.4982 |
0.55 |
-0.0037 |
-0.24 |
-0.0278 |
-0.33 |
age of head |
-0.0637 |
-2.02 |
0.4624 |
0.40 |
-0.0011 |
-1.19 |
-0.0061 |
-1.13 |
age squared |
0.0001 |
0.51 |
-0.0489 |
-1.22 |
0.0000 |
0.44 |
0.0000 |
0.12 |
education of head |
-0.3590 |
-6.59 |
-0.4128 |
-3.05 |
-0.0041 |
-2.16 |
-0.0336 |
-3.00 |
education squared |
0.0330 |
7.23 |
0.0347 |
3.06 |
0.0005 |
3.28 |
0.0029 |
3.34 |
sex of head |
0.5177 |
3.74 |
0.8964 |
2.24 |
0.0123 |
2.01 |
0.0244 |
0.69 |
% with primary educ. |
3.0879 |
7.62 |
2.0168 |
2.73 |
0.0253 |
2.06 |
0.0395 |
0.55 |
bullocks owned |
0.0731 |
11.44 |
0.1100 |
0.84 |
0.0039 |
3.27 |
0.0026 |
0.38 |
tractors owned |
1.0970 |
2.80 |
0.6722 |
0.73 |
-0.0066 |
-0.77 |
-0.0015 |
-0.03 |
cattle owned |
0.3361 |
4.92 |
0.2537 |
1.42 |
0.0011 |
0.40 |
-0.0173 |
-1.12 |
vehicles owned |
0.1207 |
20.14 |
0.0604 |
2.27 |
0.0019 |
0.99 |
0.0056 |
0.58 |
% of students |
-0.9295 |
-2.33 |
-0.7754 |
-1.19 |
0.0005 |
0.04 |
0.0608 |
0.87 |
agricultural household |
0.8127 |
5.11 |
0.8613 |
2.16 |
0.0209 |
3.80 |
0.1145 |
3.29 |
fisheries and livestock |
0.0598 |
0.59 |
0.0555 |
0.23 |
-0.0139 |
-3.21 |
-0.0370 |
-1.43 |
employer |
0.1067 |
0.66 |
-0.0002 |
-0.49 |
0.0129 |
1.50 |
0.0403 |
0.83 |
govt. employee |
0.2366 |
1.99 |
-0.2799 |
-0.63 |
0.0103 |
1.73 |
0.0469 |
1.33 |
self employed |
1.1198 |
6.87 |
0.1930 |
0.60 |
0.0137 |
2.08 |
0.0912 |
2.22 |
sigma-squared |
3.7620 |
10.14 |
1.9850 |
41.788 | ||||
sigma-v |
0.4118 |
51.80 | ||||||
sigma-t |
2.2208 |
3.66 | ||||||
sigma-g |
1.0167 |
92.93 | ||||||
gamma |
0.9386 |
139.25 |
1.0457 |
151.46 | ||||
log likelihood |
-4836.4 |
-14285.8 |
(1) -8522.55 | |||||
r-squared |
(2) 0.02096 |
0.6143 | ||||||
no. of observations |
4811 |
4811 |
4811 |
4811 |
NOTE: Estimates are not reported for the 17 district dummy variables in both equations.
55
More intriguing information
1. The demand for urban transport: An application of discrete choice model for Cadiz2. Chebyshev polynomial approximation to approximate partial differential equations
3. The geography of collaborative knowledge production: entropy techniques and results for the European Union
4. AN EXPLORATION OF THE NEED FOR AND COST OF SELECTED TRADE FACILITATION MEASURES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WTO NEGOTIATIONS
5. The name is absent
6. The Global Dimension to Fiscal Sustainability
7. Revisiting The Bell Curve Debate Regarding the Effects of Cognitive Ability on Wages
8. Draft of paper published in:
9. Ahorro y crecimiento: alguna evidencia para la economía argentina, 1970-2004
10. Une Gestion des ressources humaines à l'interface des organisations : vers une GRH territoriale ?